I've been listening that Microsoft did a good job regarding Windows 7. For crying out loud! I would like to understand what a good job is for the ones who share this idea. After all, Windows Vista was a disaster and anything that replaces it is preferable, but unlikely to be labeled "a good job" because of merely being "different".Microsoft defended Vista with every weapon the company had, but the attempt was a doomed enterprise. Users refused abandoning Windows XP to adopt Vista. Not even the Mojave experiment could change their perception about the substitute of Windows Longhorn. The last hope for Vista was the change from 32 bit to 64 bit systems, but that also failed. Nothing worked. The only course left was to say "Hasta la Vista!" to the hated OS and, thus, everyone celebrated the coming of Windows 7 with fireworks...because it had to be better than Vista.
Yet, if Windows 7 is better than Vista because it is not Vista, then everything is BETTER than Vista. XP is better than Vista. XP SP2 is better than Vista. XP SP3 is ALSO better than Vista. Ultimately, that repulsive Garbage Pail Kids movie IS better than Vista.
I read an article arguing that computer users should upgrade to Windows 7 and the author listed seven reasons to do it. The problem is that, upon careful analysis, none of them is good enough to justify the change of platform. All of the listed improvements are cosmetic ones that barely represent innovations, eyecandy that might beautify your desktop, but does not mean much in terms of functionality for the average user. For further disappointment, there is no mentioning of significant improved protection against threats among the reasons that the author mentions. Actually, Windows 7 has been criticized for having the same security problems Vista does. What's more, the new MS OS has been called a Vista Service Pack! A very expensive service pack, if you ask me.
Well, let me take that back...it is expensive if you follow the rules and buy it. Of course, some people cheat because of Microsoft's contradictory information concerning the purchase of an OEM license, so they get a price cut by saying that they built their own home system when they haven't. But then they receive NO support from Microsoft if they get an OEM license. Cute deal, isn't it? Does that explain why the introduction of Windows 7 is not making XP users accept a change of platform willingly? That is, most Windows users I know stayed with XP and the ones that have 7 do so because they purchased a new system and Windows 7 was imposed to them. However, I have also heard of users that have "downgraded" their computer to an XP one.
Almost a year ago, Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, a very honest Windows 7 user (and someone who LIKES IT), read the article I mentioned and his opinion backs up my perception. I summarize his article as follows: "If you have Vista, go ahead and get 7 ASAP. If you have XP, getting Windows 7 means that you have to pay a lot for a new toolbar...but if you want something better, then get a Linux distro."
I couldn't possibly agree more.
Vaughan-Nichols is one of the few writers I tend to trust because his reviews are measured and straight-forward. His criticism of Windows, MacOS, and Linux, as well as his praise to them are honest. Sometimes I don't like what he says, but I have to grant he's not lying.
ResponderEliminarThe main problem with most Windows users is, I'd say, they only listen to what Microsoft spokespeople say and believe it right away. They may hear honest criticism here and there, but won't listen to it.
By the way, this has nothing to do with your post, but you were totally right about Blogger's new layout tool: it messed up my whole blog...counter and everything! (that's why it looks different now :P )
ResponderEliminar