Tag Archives | Operating Systems

Sixteen Reasons the Windows Vista Era Never Quite Happened

Posted by Harry McCracken on August 10, 2009 at 12:13 am

The Wow Starts NowIn a small way, this is a significant post: It’s the first one in which I’m going to refer to Windows Vista in the past tense. Which might be premature and/or unreasonable–Windows 7 won’t reach consumers until October 22nd, and millions of copies of Vista will be in use for years to come. But last week, I was writing a piece on Windows 7 for PC World, and started to refer to “the Windows Vista era”–and then I realized that it’s hard to make the case that the Vista age ever started. (Even today, two and a half years after Vista’s release, 63 percent of the people who visit Technologizer on a Windows PC do so on Windows XP, versus 27 percent who use Vista–and if anything, you guys should be more likely than the world at large to have adopted Vista.) Already, I’m thinking of Vista as part of the past–in part because I’m looking forward to Windows 7.

More than most technology products, Vista seems to be entirely different things to different perfectly intelligent people. Some say its bad rep is unfair. Others continue to trash it. But you’ll have trouble finding many people outside of Redmond city limits who’ll contend that Vista has been a hit.

What happened?  It wasn’t one issue that hobbled Vista, it was all kinds of mishaps, none of which would have have been a disaster if it had been the only thing wrong. (In fact, most of them mirrored problems that had happened with earlier, far more successful versions of the OS, such as deadline problems and driver glitches.) Taken as a group, however, they confronted Windows Vista with both karmic and all-too-real difficulties that it never came close to resolving.

Continue Reading →

Pages: 1 2
52 comments

Windows 7: Already Buggy?

Posted by Harry McCracken on August 5, 2009 at 3:12 pm

Windows 7 BugInfoWorld’s Randall Kennedy has blogged about reports of a bug with the Chkdsk utility in the RTM (final release version) of Windows 7 that could cause the OS to blue-screen. Kennedy attempted to replicate the problem on three Windows 7 configurations; they didn’t blue-screen, but did spawn a memory leak that gobbled up massive amounts of RAM.

Meanwhile, Ed Bott has also looked into the situation and concludes that whatever’s happening isn’t likely to crop up often enough or cause serious enough grief to be classified as a showstopper. And as Ed notes, Windows head honcho Steven Sinofsky has commented on another blog that reported on all this, saying that Chkdsk intentionally grabs a lot of memory to speed things up, and that Microsoft hasn’t been able to replicate the crash but it is looking into it.

Assuming that this is a real Win 7 issue that Microsoft can fix– but not in time to get it onto the first Windows 7 PCs–I suspect that it’ll roll out a patch that will be ready and waiting for installation by the time Windows 7 arrives on October 22nd.  Swatting bugs during the time between finishing RTM code and software actually getting to consumers seems to be standard practice these days; I’ve even talked to industryfolk (not at Microsoft) who cheerfully admit that it’s part of how they make deadlines.

Whether the issue Kennedy wrote about is a serious bug, a minor one or (as Sinofsky says) a feature, Windows 7 will be buggy. So will Apple’s Snow Leopard when it ships. So is all software–especially major updates to big, complex applications such as operating systems. That’s why Kennedy’s concluding advice makes sense:

What this latest episode has taught me is that no major release of Windows –- not even one that is more or less a supersized patch of the previous version –- deserves a pass, and that the old wisdom of “wait for the first service pack” still applies with Windows 7.

I’m enthusiastic about Windows 7 myself–hey, I’ve been running pre-release versions since last year. But I’ll still advise many friends (especially the less adventuresome among them) that it can’t hurt to let other people discover Windows 7’s worst glitches before making the move from XP or Vista.

6 comments

Will Windows 7 Win Back Defectors to the Mac? Probably Not. And That’s OK.

Posted by Harry McCracken on July 31, 2009 at 12:32 am

Windows 7 and Snow LeopardDaring Fireball’s John Gruber has posted a piece titled “Microsoft’s Long, Slow Decline.” As with most of what he writes, it’s both provocative and thought-provoking, whether you agree with all of it, some of it, or none at all.

Gruber writes about such matters as Microsoft’s recent lackluster financial results, the recent news of Apple’s utter domination of the high-end retail PC market, and the cartwheels Microsoft COO Kevin Turner supposedly turned in the hallways over Apple’s response to Microsoft’s “Laptop Hunters” commercials. He mentions Windows 7 and says:

But no one seems to be arguing that Windows 7 is something that will tempt Mac users to switch, or to tempt even recent Mac converts to switch back. It doesn’t even seem to be in the realm of debate. But if Windows 7 is actually any good, why wouldn’t it tempt at least some segment of Mac users to switch? Windows 95, 98, and XP did.

I haven’t heard anyone contend that Windows 7 will convince Mac switchers to come back, either. Then again, I haven’t heard anyone say it’s not good enough to change the game. But it’s an interesting question.

It’s also one that’s hard to answer just yet. For one thing, while Windows 7 looks quite promising, we don’t yet know what PC manufacturers are going to do with it, and there’s a real chance that at least some of them will muck up a respectable OS with demoware, adware, and various other forms of unwantedware. For another, Windows 7 will compete against Apple’s Snow Leopard, an OS which doesn’t go on sale until September and which–unlike Windows 7–has had no period of public preview.

Based on the months I’ve spent running pre-release versions of Windows 7, I think there’s a good chance it’ll have a meaningful impact on the whole “PC or Mac?” question. It significantly narrows the gap between OS X and Windows for usability and overall polish, and while it doesn’t eradicate OS X’s lead, it should leave Windows users at least somewhat less likely to abandon ship.

But Gruber wasn’t talking about whether Windows 7 will stop more people from leaving Windows; he was talking about whether it’ll convince Mac users to switch from Macs, and saying that if Windows 7 is really good, it will.

I’m not so sure. History suggests that people don’t like to switch operating systems and the most striking significant shifts in operating-system market share have happened when one OS has been on alarmingly shaky ground. Back when the exodus from Macs to Windows 95 and Windows 98 that Gruber refers to happened, Apple’s OS was floundering and it wasn’t clear that the company was going to survive. And Apple has made major inroads over the past couple of years in part because Windows Vista was such a mediocrity.

Apple is positioning Snow Leopard as an OS that’s very much like Leopard, except faster, sleeker, and more reliable. Unless it somehow turns out to be a less appealing Leopard, it’s going to be really pleasing. People tend not to dump pleasing OSes, even if there are also other pleasing OSes. S0 I’m not going to judge Windows 7 based on there whether are meaningful quantities of Mac users who are drawn to it…

35 comments

What if…Microsoft Had a Windows App Store?

Posted by Harry McCracken on July 28, 2009 at 6:18 pm

Windows 95I continue to think of my iPhone not as a phone but as a personal computer. Which is why I continue to be so nonplussed about Apple’s barring of some applications on the grounds that they compete with its own apps, and others at (reportedly) the behest of AT&T. The moves may well serve Apple’s short-term goals. Long term, though, I think they’ll make the iPhone a weaker, less useful platform. That’s not in the interest of iPhone owners, Apple, AT&T, or (come to think of it) anyone except Apple’s competitors.

All of which got me wondering: What if an Apple-like App Store had been the been the only sanctioned way to acquire software for other major computing platforms? Like, for instance, Microsoft Windows? And what if, in this alternative universe, Microsoft’s policies and actions had mirrored those of Apple today?

It would have changed everything–and not for the better. After the jump, a speculative FAQ about the Windows App Store.

Continue Reading →

29 comments

The Windows Cash Cow Takes a Beating

Posted by Harry McCracken on July 23, 2009 at 2:52 pm

Windows LogoMicrosoft has announced its fourth quarter financial results, and for those of us who are Microsoft customers rather than shareholders, the most striking factoid may be this: The company’s revenue from Windows took a hit of more than a billion dollars compared to what it reaped a year ago. How come? Well, the crummy state of the worldwide economy didn’t help, but another factor was the ongoing popularity of netbooks. They typically sell for less than a $400, and usually ship with a copy of Windows XP that Microsoft can’t charge as much money for as it’s used to getting for Windows. No wonder we haven’t heard Microsoft (or much of anyone else in the PC industry, including netbook manufacturers) wax enthusiastic about netbooks.

The industry keeps predicting the imminent downfall of netbooks, which will supposedly be killed by more powerful thin-and-light notebooks which just happen to cost more. Starting in three months, those thin-and-lights will ship with versions of Windows 7 which Microsoft will be able to charge more for–and it seems like a safe bet that Windows 7 will help Microsoft’s financial statements look a little rosier in general once the OS ships. But I persist in believing that it’s also entirely possible that $400 (and $300) netbook-type computers are here to stay, and could make up a significant part of the laptop industry from here on out. If consumers buy ’em, there’s little or nothing that PC manufacturers and Microsoft can do to stop them. And if netbooks stick around, they’ll have a profound effect on Microsoft’s fortunes whose real impact is yet to be seen.

7 comments

Microsoft Finishes Off Windows 7

Posted by David Worthington on July 22, 2009 at 2:49 pm

Windows 7 LogoWindows 7 has been released to manufacturing, according to a report by Mary Jo Foley on her blog that’s been confirmed by a Microsoft post. Windows 7 is due for commercial availability on October 22nd, which means that PC manufacturers have three months to test the final version of the OS, manufacture the first Windows 7 systems, and get them onto store shelves.

News about the release was synchronized with CEO Steve Ballmer’s keynote address at a Microsoft sales conference, according to the report. For those are you who are keeping track, the build number is 7600.16385, and it was compiled last Monday, July 13. In other words: Microsoft has delivered Windows 7 on schedule.

Microsoft took preemptive action to avoid antitrust troubles with the European Commission last month, stripping its Internet explorer browser out of European editions of Windows 7. Microsoft had a contingency plan to ship Windows 7 in January in the event that antitrust actions delayed its release.

Yesterday, the company outlined when Windows 7 would become available for different categories of customers. Business customers, developers and IT professionals will receive first dibs, and be able to download Windows 7 early next month.

It will be interesting to see whether Windows 7 provides a stimulus to global PC sales, which have been slumping in the midst of the worldwide economic downturn. My prediction is that there will be a modest bump in sales– these things happen in cycles.

Windows 7 is a big improvement upon Windows Vista, but the hoopla of days when people lined up to buy OS’s is over. There are simply too many alternatives, and the Web is the great equalizer.

My trusty old Windows XP computer accesses the same Web services that someone on a Windows 7 PC uses, and my iPhone keeps me connected when I’m away from my desktop machines. If I buy a new PC I’ll opt for Windows 7, but the functionality that it delivers will not dramatically alter my daily experience with personal technology. Do you agree?

5 comments

It’s Official: Microsoft to Offer Windows 7 “Family Pack”

Posted by David Worthington on July 22, 2009 at 2:17 pm

Households that have multiple computers will be able to buy Windows 7 at a discount, Microsoft revealed in a blog posting yesterday–confirming recent rumors. “We have heard a lot of feedback from beta testers and enthusiasts over the last 3 years that we need a better solution for homes with multiple PCs,” according to the blog entry. The license is limited to installation on three PCs in select markets, it noted. In comparison, Mac OS X family packs permit end users to install the operating system on up to five Macintosh computers.

“I’ve been one of those people nagging on that. Glad to hear it. Anything you can do to make it easier to buy the product helps facilitate its acquisition. Apple has already done this for some time,” said Michael Cherry, a Directions on Microsoft analyst. “Multiple computer families is a factor– particularly with netbooks coming along.”

Likely customer demographics will be families that have children or teenagers, he added.

It makes sense for Microsoft to offer greater value to families. The message of its recent “I’m a PC” advertising campaign is value, and its licensing policies should be consistent with its marketing.

2 comments

The Ongoing Unfulfilled Promise of Gears

Posted by Harry McCracken on July 17, 2009 at 12:17 pm

Gears LogoI persist in believing that we don’t know enough about Google’s Chrome OS to either love the idea or hate it. But this I know: If Chrome OS netbooks only work when they’ve got an active Internet connection, they’ll make no sense at all. The day may come when Internet access is available everywhere and everywhere. But for now, computers need to provide some level of functionality even when they’re cut off from the Net.

I’m assuming that Google wouldn’t dispute that and is building a Chrome OS that will work offline in one fashion or another. Which got me thinking about a Google project that’s both one of my favorites and a major disappointment: Gears.

When Google announced in 2007 that it was developing a framework to help Web services run even when the Web wasn’t available, my PC World pals and I got so excited that we named Gears as the year’s most innovative product. Then another few months passed, and I got worried that the Web wasn’t jumping on the Gears bandwagon as quickly as I’d hoped it would.

Gears is now more than two years old, and the list of services that support it remains remarkably short. Actually, I’m not sure if there is an official list of Gears-friendly services: Google’s Gears site refers to a “select group” of services, but doesn’t mention them. In this case, “select” is presumably a synonym for “short.”  The Wikipedia page for Gears mentions fifteen Gears-enabled services, six of which are from Google itself. For the most part, they don’t replicate all their Web functionality within an offline browser–even Gmail, which may have the neatest Gears implementation to date, offers a reduced set of features.

Making Web services work sans Web is, clearly, really hard. Even for a company with as many smart people and resources as Google (and Gears is an open-source project, so it’s not even limited by the amount of attention Google is able to devote to it). I’m still a Gears fan, and I’m still hopeful that Gears will turn out to be a late bloomer rather than a cool idea that never caught on. For now, though, it’s proof that Web technologies still benefit mightily from having access to the Web.

As far as I know, Google hasn’t said what role Gears plays in Chrome OS. It’s a safe bet that it’s part of the OS, and that Gears-enabled services will work on Chrome OS netbooks. But does it provide Chrome OS with its only offline features? We just don’t know. Chrome OS is based on a Linux kernel, so it’s also entirely possible that it’ll have some level of support for Linux apps. Any guesses?

11 comments

We Know Almost Nothing About Chrome OS

Posted by Harry McCracken on July 10, 2009 at 8:44 am

chromeosDaring Fireball’s John Gruber has an excellent post up on Chrome OS. He’s skeptical and critical. But most of all, he wants Google to put up or shut up: “I like facts, demos, and best of all, shipping products. I don’t like vague promises,” he says.

And that’s the thing about Chrome OS: Google announced it without telling the world enough to allow us to form coherent opinions about it. If it has a fresh, inventive, and useful interface, it’ll be a lot more interesting than if it’s a reduced-functionality knock-off of Windows or OS X. But we just don’t know. If it’s autonomous enough to stay useful even when you’re not connected, it’ll be a lot more interesting than if it’s crippled by the lack of an Internet connection. But we just don’t know. If Google intends to make it possible to install Chrome OS on a variety of hardware, it’ll be more interesting than if it only works on a handful of netbooks. But we just don’t know. And so on.

There’s no law that a company needs to wait to announce a product until it’s ready to discuss it in detail. Conspiracy theories abound about why Google started talking about Chrome OS when it did. I’m not hazarding any guesses about the timing. But I do know that the only bottom line on Chrome OS that makes much sense right now is “Well, it could be interesting.”

Oh, and another thing we just don’t know about Chrome OS: When Google plans to show it to us, rather than describe it in general terms…

4 comments

A Little More Chrome OS Knowledge

Posted by Harry McCracken on July 8, 2009 at 4:43 pm

Google has published a FAQ on its Chrome OS project. It contains the minimum number of questions and answers necessary to qualify as a Frequently Asked Questions list–two. We now know that Chrome OS will be free (it would have been startling if it wasn’t). And we know that Google is working with Acer, Adobe, Asus, Freescale, Hewlett-Packard, Lenovo, Qualcomm, and Texas Instruments. Presumably Acer, Asus, HP, and Lenovo will make Chrome OS netbooks; Adobe will make stuff like Acrobat, AIR, and Flash happen; and Freescale, Qualcomm, and TI will collaborate with Google on chip support.

The big news here is the lineup of major computer manufacturers who are on board. That doesn’t guarantee anything–Google’s Android mobile OS has been embraced by multiple major phone companies, and it’s still getting off to a somewhat slow start–but it’s still impressive. And given that it’ll be a year at the soonest before any Chrome OS netbooks show up, it’s entirely possible that other manufacturers will hop on board before launch.

7 comments