Windows 7 Is Better, According to What Exactly?

I just read an article by Walter Mossberg at the Wall Street Journal, that frankly made me question the viability of his words. You can read the article here:

http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/107925/a-windows-to-help-you-forget?mod=career-worklife_balance

I found this review of Windows 7 rather awkward. While Mossberg starts out saying that Win 7 is a worthwhile upgrade, he eventually makes the case that Win 7 is better than Vista (not hard to do) and probably not worthwhile enough for XP users to want to install. Perhaps he should have been more clear from the start, but most Vista users will likely want to upgrade to anything from what they have. When Vista was less than a year out, I saw what was coming...a landslide of people trying to upgrade to something that merely provided a better-looking user experience and promises of better security. If you're a Vista user, XP user, or any kind of Windows user, you already know that security patches galore are coming or available. Vista promised to be more secure and hackers proved it wrong. Is Win 7 likely to be any different, after all these years of Microsoft re-branding the same lemon?

In his article, Walt Mossberg states, "Windows 7 introduces real advances in organizing your programs and files, arranging your taskbar and desktop, and quickly viewing and launching the page or document you want, when you want it. It also has cool built-in touch-screen features." Is Microsoft still trying to fix things few are really asking for, when security and stability ought to be their #1 task? I can't tell you how many times in my career I've been approached by users, frustrated by the fact that the interface to their favorite Microsoft App (which tends to either be Excel or Word) has been changed by a new version and they can't find the thing they use most. Why not fix pagination in Word, which has never worked entirely well, since it's inception? Why not concentrate on TRULY making sure the program runs in it's on dedicated space, and stop blaming third party programs for the crashes?

Yet, as Mossberg writes, Microsoft made sure to spend time on Windows 7 to provide touch screen capabilities (what?...who has one of those?), something called Aero-Peek (which sounds strangely like the lesser-known capability of XP, known as the Quickbar), and jumplists (right-click an taskbar icon for recent documents, etc. OK that one sounds pretty useful). He mentions how you can, say, shake an application window and make the others hide. He talks about Windows 7 provided easier sharing tools.

I can already do all of these things with my XP machine and even make it look much like Vista, Windows 7, or just about anything I want. There are third party programs, like StrokeIt, or WindowBlinds, Fences, ObjectDock, etc. Stardock is a company that provides a ton of programs that make Windows much easier on the eye and to use. I remember when Win 98 and Win 2000 came out, already having better sharing capabilities. You can get programs that can assist with this far cheaper than doling out $120 for a Windows upgrade. Many are free.

Back to Mossberg's article, he continues, "It (Windows 7) removes a lot of clutter. And it mostly banishes Vista's main flaws -- sluggishness; incompatibility with third-party software and hardware; heavy hardware requirements; and constant, annoying security warnings." However, he also mentions, "If you have a standard PC, called a 32-bit PC, you'll need at least one gigabyte of memory, 16 gigabytes of free hard-disk space and a graphics system that can support Microsoft technologies called "DirectX 9 with WDDM 1.0." You'll also need a processor with a speed of at least one gigahertz. If you have a newer-style 64-bit PC, which can use more memory, you'll need at least two gigabytes of memory and 20 gigabytes of free hard disk space. In either case, you should double the minimum memory specification." How are those requirements not heavy? Most people only have 1-2Gb of memory, even on newer machines, so this means they would only have the minimum to run certain versions of Windows 7. In addition, I think it's too premature to say that third party software and hardware will work well with it. He's one guy, having run tests on 11 machines, all of which are major computer manufacturers that try to ensure their products run most things. Time will tell if his statement is true.

Another thing I found interesting is how he compares Windows 7 to Apple' Snow Leopard. He does say that Snow Leopard is slightly better in most aspects, but I don't think you can say that for what you get in Snow Leopard for $29 vs a $120 upgrade to something not much better is a worthwhile upgrade. Many people have told me that the only reason they wouldn't purchase an Apple computer is that it costs so much more. In fact, I have a colleague who recently purchased a pretty decent Dell laptop for $500. $500 vs $1400 or so is definitely cheaper. I asked him what came with it and, my having worked with PCs for 30 years or so, I knew what costs were coming. Maintenance, updates, crashes, hardware problems, time, software for security, productivity, leisure, maintenance, updates, crashes, more hardware problems, time. In the end, you'll spend more on that laptop than you likely will on the Mac.

I have both, and I have never had to fix my MacBook Pro or reinstall the OS in the last year and a half. It has actually frozen on me a couple of times, but a simple reboot and a little frustration later, I was back in business. In contrast, my Windows machine has had to be reinstalled twice, and crashes on almost a monthly basis. When I heard that Macs run Windows better than other PC's, I balked. I figured it was simply because the Windows was hardly being used and a newer installation. I've had it on my MacBook Pro for most of the time I've had the laptop. I don't use Windows on it as often as my main PC, sure...but it still runs much faster than my statistically more powerful desktop.

I hope Mossberg is listening, as I think the more qualified experts can tell you...don't upgrade to anything Microsoft, unless you have to. I've seen it's history over a long period of time. A lemon with chocolate chips in it is still a lemon.

Excuse Me, I Just Need to Make a Call

Is it just me, or is anyone else out there sick of being pushed cell phones that want to do everything? Last time I purchased a cell phone, all I wanted was something that could make calls easily and that I could hear, especially via speakerphone. Unfortunately, I had to pay a huge amount of money for the phone, because it has all those other features I never use.

We could reduce the amount of money spent on cell phones and contracts if providers would simply listen to what I hear others say, also. We just want to make a phone call. If I wanted to take a picture, I would get a camera...the cell phones just don't cut it either in quality or adjustment. Real cameras give you the ability to adjust shutter speed, light settings, delay, format, etc. I have to admit that there is software from onOne that is also offered via Apple's App Store and will allow you to adjust just those settings on your iPhone. Yet, I don't even care. I'm not trying to sound negative at all, but to say, can I just have the basic, good quality phone option, please?

I would rather spend as much as I do on these phones, whose biggest features I never use, and have that extra money go to better networks or better customer service. The basic, good quality phone that I managed to get some time ago, has pictures, video, music, and even TV? I can even text if I want. Do I use any of it? Not really. I want to hear the person on the other end more clearly and have them hear me. I want to be able to hear the device, in the car, without having to purchase and use yet another device (E.g. Bluetooth speaker). If any of these company's are watching, please please please give us a basic, good quality phone. No fluff. Either offer same price, where the money is put to good use, or price it lower to match the usefulness of the product and service.

Your Bandwidth Gone In a Flash

I've been looking at Adobe's efforts to put Flash on mobile devices for a while now (E.g. http://www.adobe.com/products/flashlite/ and http://www.adobe.com/mobile/). It's been slow going and adoption by mobile device makers and cell providers has also been long and drawn out. Yet, Adobe is making headlines recently, concerning their efforts to bring this dominant web media player to that beloved handheld of yours. I like Flash for certain things (playing music, videos, etc.), but I don't prefer it for most. What you'll find is that having it on your cell is not going to make you as happy as you think.

There's a reason this effort has taken so long. It's because Flash can be a huge bandwidth hog. Adobe has had to make something that has proven to be quite heavy on networks, lighter. Cell providers don't want to, and shouldn't have to, accommodate this, just so you can have animated icons and ads. Videos and music already play on their networks just fine. Even if you could get this thing to work adequately, it still isn't the same as having a movie saved on your handheld media player and playing from there, instead of over a network. That said, of course you can use Flash as a player for media that is local to the device. Eye-candy has a place in sales, after all.

Yet, I still don't see the need. I've been in IT for a long time. I generally know what I'm up against, even if I've never seen it before. I've learned to look past the sales pitches and client-facing corporate PR to get to the meat of things. I've seen way too many sites that use Flash and not only offer little significant features by this, but also take forever to load.

Here's a test. Look up web design awards on the net. Most are given to Flash-laden sites that anyone with an average machine would have to wait ages to bring up on screen. Do these sites deserve awards? Certainly from an artistic standpoint, etc., they do.

But I'm not here to debate about merits of web design...simply to say that Flash really ought to be used on music and video sites. Personal sites are fine too. But why bother with it just to say something that could be said much faster and easier and not create bandwidth bloat?

I like Flash for the aesthetics and some functionality, but I most certainly DO NOT want it on my handheld. Perhaps this is why Apple doesn't want it on the iPhone, either.