What's wrong with Windows 7 – update

If you like your current OS/Hardware config and its working for you, use it.

If you are a PC gear-head and don't mind backing up your data, wiping the drive, and re-installing everything (takes me about 4 hours w. Win 7 on a newer computer), do it.

If you believe Win 7, Mac OS, or Linux is the best, it is.

Really, y'all are arguing over whose car is the best. Its sort of a pointless argument. "Different strokes for different folks."

And this article is so obviously biased you'd be a *moron* to believe anything in it. It's just another (innacurrate) list of talking points to help Mac users feel better about their over-priced purchase.

If Apple thinks it has such a winning software product, why not port it and sell it to the mass PC market?

Because it doesn't have a winning software product. It has a software + hardware package.

Bottom line is: Windows 7 wins because you can't upgrade an XP or a Vista machine with Snow Leopard.

No one will ever read this, but there are plenty of OS X exploits http://www.milw0rm.com/platforms/osX

An awful lot of Microsoft executives are running out here to defend their bonuses….I mean product.

I switched to Linux BEFORE Vista came out, and I've never looked back since. Its great not having to worry about viruses or having to actually buy software any more – everything is free!

The bias in this journalism is insane, you claim "news from outside the reality distortion field", but you are as much a culprit as any other site. I appreciate that you're publishing the negative aspects, as most other sights are just blindly bragging, but you take it to an extreme. You not only rely on a singular source, but additionally become petty in your attack. A one by one analysis of your major points:
o "On a couple of these machines, glacial start-up and reboot times reminded me of Vista." –I'm sure the start-up on some Mac systems is also glacial, and also you have to appreciate that Microsoft is working with non-standardized machines, whereas every PC running Mac is sold by Mac. Additionally, I am concerned about the macro scale, not one or two computers.
o "The variety of editions in which Windows 7 is offered is confusing." –if people can't choose between three editions, then they shouldn't be using a computer, plus choice is good
o "It’s tedious and painful to upgrade an existing computer from XP to 7" –I agree this is a legitimate concern, but to repeat it 3 times, with different wording is a tad unnecessary
o "In my tests, [a new feature called HomeGroups] worked, but not consistently, and it required typing in long, arcane passwords." –I don't know about you, but I'm a fan of having a secure network. Each additional digit equates to additional security. Also as they say, 16-bit equals 16 seconds.

The rest either were different permutations of the above points or contained too many blaring bias words to be taken seriously

ex ped: I think you may have missed something. Those were Walt Mossberg's caveats — not mine — contained in the body of what was, taken as a whole, a positive review.

I have a Mac user friend who once remarked that most people who buy a Mac don't know why they're buying a Mac. There was absolutely no real reason to get a Mac before the age of OS X, simple reason being OS X gets its versatility from its UNIX background. Windows systems (I recently upgraded from XP to 7 via MSDN) and UNIX-like systems both serve their purpose, which is why I have dual boot on all my computers. I would probably have bought some version of OS X, except they don't sell it; which is why I use Ubuntu instead.

"UPDATE: Kudos to reader Jon T. of Cardiff, Wales, for digging up this quote from Mossberg's review of Vista:

"After months of testing Vista on multiple computers, new and old, I believe it is the best version of Windows that Microsoft has produced." — Wall Street Journal, Jan. 18, 2007

"After using pre-release versions of Windows 7 for nine months, and intensively testing the final version for the past month on many different machines, I believe it is the best version of Windows Microsoft has produced." — Wall Street Journal, Oct. 8, 2009

[Follow Philip Elmer-DeWitt on Twitter @ philiped]"

If I were on a jury, that'd be the d*mning piece of evidence to convict Mossberg on, for fraud.

Great article. Windows users got burned badly with the Vista debacle and it will take a very long time for MS to earn back that trust. Much depends on how they manage the W7 intro. I am a network admin for a small company and managed to avoid Vista until about a month ago. Someone stole my bosses laptop and he had to buy one the same day his was stolen. No time to upgrade to XP just time to load all the apps. This brand new PC is a disaster. Among other things, the desktop disappears at random and cannot be restored. It's impossible to remove the Office 2007 demo which keeps popping up when you try to run your Office 2003 programs. There's more but lest I be accused excessive bashing…

I do hope the upgrade to W7 is an improvement over this piece of digital junk. I plan on sticking with ol' reliable XP for a few years to see how it all shakes out with W7.

Also, this article is pointless. I believe it was a wonderful phrase that we learned in kindergarden: If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all.

The other article exists so we could have just gone there to read a review of Windows 7. What's the purpose of compiling a "What's wrong with Windows 7" article? Have you used the OS? Maybe you should, and then write your own article. And based on the fact that you published this one I'm sure you'd be able to come up with plenty of problems to make you feel better about buying Apple products.

"On a couple of others, after upgrading, key features like the display or touchpad didn’t work properly."

This has nothing to do with Microsoft, it has to do with the Third Party drivers that need to be updated to function with Windows 7. This was part of Vista's problem, many of the issues with third party software and apps were the result of those companies laziness in updating the code to function fully on Vista.

Look on the bright side, Phillip. At least Windows 7 won't delete all your user files if you let a guest log in.

This is surely biased, paid by the big money makers of apple!! I tried the latest Macbook Pro 17, not that great! Marketers just want to make a hype out of it.

Ubuntu is still less of a hassle than Windows or actually more robust than OSX.

The Apple v. Mac is the same argument as Ford v. Chevy. No one is better than the other, they're different. And as far as the apple doesn't have viruses… guess what… they do! Apple put up a huge ad campaign saying they're immune, and guess what, the guys making viruses decided to make them eat their words. Apple got too cocky too fast, and their users are now going to pay for it. Windows screwed up just as bad releasing vista, at least they're onto fixing it by releasing the update starting at only 30 bucks.

ex ped: Steve, could you give us the names of some of those Mac OS X viruses?

Looking forward to trying it out and forming my own opinion on this OS version.

I'be been running vista on 2 desktops and 3 laptops since it was introduced – never had any problems. (I'm beginning to think the media make stuff just to sell papers and magazine). I've also been running Win 7 RC on a laptop and desktop – no problems there either. I think some people just like bashing MSFT; that's ok, try linux or Mac OS.

Its so obvious your article is biased.

Hmmm, I threw my Macs away because Apple decided I couldn't put OS X on 2 of them and I could only put OS X 10.2 on the other. So how is that different than not being able to upgrade to Win 7 on an older PC? To add to the Mac insult, I needed a new cdrom drive for the IMac and they are about $250 because you can ONLY use Apple cdrom drives and not one of the many fine inexpensive cdrom or dvdram drive made by many manufacturers. Also, would you trust an antivirus program that was using 1 yr old definitions? Well, maybe a Mac user would. (but then what self respecting virus writer would lower himself to writing a Mac virus) Go figure.

I am happy with Ubuntu. I am using my PC, laptop and netbooks without the threat of virus or spyware or addware or whatever-hell-ware are there, and ofcourse without buying any software!

Well it took a while to read all of the postings.It seem that people are going to be split on windows 7 or apple.I,M old been around along time,and use apple and windows PC. Had to have Both in the house. Schools at the time Use apple Computers, So Apples Computers for the Kids, and PC.s for Me and My Wife, because both our Jobs Used Windows PC.s The Widows Machines I could Fix Myself and Upgrade My self Easy. The Apples had to be return to where they were purchase for Repair. Apple lost the schools because the business world does and will always use the PC (windows),I ran DOS, Windows 2.0, 3.0, 3.11 all the way now to windows 7 RTM , I am still a big Fan OF XP Pro, I still think it s the best OS for the PC. But I did install windows 7 on my Acer Netbook with 2 GB of ram and a 250 gb HDD with no Problems at all and its running just as fast as XP. and this windows 7 is the Ultimate RTM. also I install the win 7 RTM on a 5 Year Old desk top 3 GBs of Ram 200 GB HHD and 128 Megs of Video Ram and its running as good as xp Pro. The RTM verison of Windows 7 uses less resources than the RC version of windows 7. What comes down to is ,until someone comes out with a OS that can run all of Windows software that out on the
market, Microsoft will allways be the only game in town. Apple OS or Windows OS you use what you need.

cooooool windows 7

The article laments software that used to be packaged no longer being included. This is because they get slammed with anti-trust lawsuits for "bundling" any of their own software. They offer everything free to download, even an unobtrusive virus program [Microsoft Security Essentials], but cannot include these things because it gives them an 'unfair advantage'.

And like this comparison, all of your arguements are dumb, frankly. You use whatever you use and be happy that you have whatever it is that you use, then, I'll use whatever I use and I'll be happy using it.

Bottom line is, really… you're both wrong.
Posted By Cappii, Greenville, SC: October 9, 2009 8:07 AM

I coulden't agree more. I have machines going from an really old DOS 486 I use for programming older embedded processors (Works fine) to a unit I built with a thermoelectric water cooled WAY overdriven processor that sits in the corner unless I feel the need to animate something. My favorite machine for most internet browsing is still my ancient pentium III 1Ghz machine from the dark ages running (gasp) Windows 98. The operating systems range from FreeDOS to Windows (whatever version) to a custom OS I was forced to write to get certain jobs done fast. I love and hate them all in equal measure. Unix, HPux, Windows, MAC OS (whatever version) all pretty much are simply fancier hammers used to get the job done. In the end it's all about what you want to do and what you are willing to put up with to get there. When I need a small controller with realtime OSing I'm not about to force feed Windows Embedded into it. If I need exotic I trim out as much as possible to get what's needed. The rest is just a mental exercise to discover quirks and fix them when I'm bored. No one should have to go through that just to get a hammer that works for them. I just like doing it. I don't recommend it. So wait until you get to the point where the machine you are using can't do exactly what you want the way you want it to then only upgrade to whatever WILL get it done. You'll be much happier even if you don't get bragging rights you'll be a lot less frustrated waiting for someone to fix and patch you out of a jam. AND AS ALWAYS…. SAVE your valuable data. You could have a dream machine and your hardware decides to give you a lesson in hubris…….

Dude Seriously.

Mac news from outside the reality distortion field?

You are picking on small stuff to bash Windows 7, the stuff most people won't have to deal with. I can come up with a bigger list about crApple and Mac OS. Learn to look at the big picture

Windows 7 is a still a turkey. File copying is still pure BS…MS keeps moving around control panels and settings…the authorization control has gone from annoying (Vista) to pointless…its harder to navigate around the system.

They need to recognize that calling Vista by another name and improving the performance isn't going to make things better. Its still Vista.

Seriously – MS needs to do an OS reset…Maybe they should do an XP SP4 or something.

XP was a great OS – but all the stuff since then has been horrible.

John Brenneise complained about not being able to find a web browser for Mac OS 9.x. The last machine Apple made that can't run Mac OS X came out in 1997. Anyone running a 12 year old computer of any kinds who expects to be able to run modern software is delusional.

I hope Windows 7 is as good as the reviews say. Putting a better OS into the hands of ordinary people will benefit us all.

Penarth

Why just write about the negatives? Are you not able to do a simple pros and cons list?

Wow, two people from Cardiff on the same page?!

Jon, whereabouts?

Wow, amazing the so many people are clueless about operating systems here.

I haven't used windows at home in over 11 years….. ELEVEN YEARS people. There are alternatives, and they are FREE, FREE, FREE !!

There are very very very few things that Linux cannot do out of the box for 99% of the users now. Try Linux, expand your possibilities.

It never fails. Whenever anyone says anything at all, negative or postive… or even neutral, about a particular operating system in an online report, the zealots line up to start bashing it.

Personally, I don't care how much you spent for your precious Mac. I don't care what you like to do with your stupid PC, and I don't care what kind of 15-year old piece of crap hardware you're running Linux on.

Computers, in a way, are like cars. You drive an Mercedes, you drive a BMW, and I drive a 28 year old Buick. Mine gets me from A to B just like yours, and I happen to really love my car, the same as you, even if I spent 100k less for it.

MAc users are the MErcedes drivers. They spent way too much for their car, but it does some really neat things… like cup holders that keep their Evian icy cold, and their Tall Soy Lattes piping hot… but the CAR is no better than the Honda or the Buick. It may look nicer and have Shiatsu massaging seats and 7.1 Dolby surround sound built into the headrest, but it still serves 1 purpose… trasportation.

Fact is, I can go spend 20k on a used Camaro, including the engine upgrades, and other performance features, and blow that $120k Mercedes off the road, and I can brag to all of my buddies how I did it while I spend my weekends in the shop fixing whatever broke this week.

And like this comparison, all of your arguements are dumb, frankly. You use whatever you use and be happy that you have whatever it is that you use, then, I'll use whatever I use and I'll be happy using it.

Bottom line is, really… you're both wrong.

Walt Mossberg has been phoning things in for a while. I honestly wish he would just retire as I can not longer trust his reviews.

I just don't see the problem everybody has with Vista. I love it. Anytime you upgrade you will have to make changes. Vista has been the best OS I've had. I like the nagging it has help protect my computer for years.

28 Years of IT experience tells me the os that works in my application is the best OS. History would tell us any Windows OS need to be used by the public for at least a year before we could conclude how successful the OS actually will be.

What is lost on many about Windows 7 is the fact that over 35% of the machines that are running XP are single core processors. Until those people's machines die or they upgrade to faster multi-core processors, they will probably not see the need for Win-7, so I predict slow adoption as with Vista. As long as microsoft follows Intel's coattails with X86 they have a winner.. part of the reason MACS never really had a chance is because the company could not be trusted (most importantly to the US government) to keep the o/s compatible and open it's source code to them so that computers controlling sensitive materials would never break down, and or be subject to a "how much is it worth to you" pricetag to fix (or at least that was the impresion given in the 70's & 80's which ruined their possible domination of the market)– same deal with corporate america, and by default– the world. That's the reason why you pay more for macs, because they are a boutique price based upon it's market position of around 5-10%. Jobs finally gave in and dropped IBM chips in favor of X86 chips, though too little, too late, IMO.
The other thing, is if I have to FORMAT my system for win-7 from XP– I'm gonna do it when it's convenient to ME, not M/S. We are also waiting for the next round of processor & motherboard price cuts to accelerate sales of quad+core processors (having a lineup under and straddling $90-150 each should do the trick). All the new operating systems yearn for more power, and the latest in hardware. My system is from 2003- therefore I've missed out on the PCI-E, 2 socket upgrades, generations of processor upgrades and an update to SATA. Its very likely that my next build will start with win 7 out of the gate when my budget for the parts meets what they're offering (q1, 2010 assuming a total budget of $300-350 for cpu/mb/ram/graphicscard/psupplyifneeded/harddrive).

My MSDOS Requirements –

16K of RAM, a floppy disk, and a keyboard

However, you'll probably want to install some add-ons that come in higher DOS versions, but all DOS's need to be able to run in uner 640K of RAM, and all will boot off a floppy as well. For example, I was able to run PC DOS 2000 on a 1981 model by putting the DOS onto a floppy. It runs fine.

VS. The "competition" (if you want to call it that).

— XP —
• PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended

• 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)

• 1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*

• Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor

• CD-ROM or DVD drive

• Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device

(Just to install the OS)

—Vista—

1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor

1 GB of system memory

40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:

WDDM Driver

128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)

Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware

32 bits per pixel

DVD-ROM drive

Audio Output

Internet access (fees may apply)

In conclusion, we can CLEARLY see which OS is the dominating one in these cases. So the previous two about DOS is a highly valid arguement and I back it open.

In comparison to DOS none of these OS' hold a torch. DOS does every command to the specifications exactly. DOS takes virtually no time to load up and to boot my 8gb Ram and 1024 mb video card works perfect with the system. It might be overkill but how can you go wrong?

Why would I talk about transitioning from xp? Or vista for that matter… I use DOS and my startup time is soooo fast!! And what about us who are upgrading from DOS? It's going to be a pain in the "behind" for me to back up all my files…

Mehul, please go take a remedial English class before trying to state an opinion on a technical topic.

As for the inherent security problems and threats to Windows, the market IS oversaturated with the Windows OS. The main reason it won the "Operating System War" was because cheap computers supported it; Apple Macintosh computers have been proprietary from the start, and used to cost a lot more compared to a Windows machine of comparable ability. Even though Macintosh computers are built to be much more reliable, us thrifty Americans decided to buy the cheap computers… It just goes back to the old adage, "You get what you pay for".

I personally run Windows machines; 5 currently in my home office. I have found Linux to be much more stable, alas finding drivers for these PCs can be an annoying process, so I stuck with Windows, and reinstall machines after 4-6 months of use to reduce system bloat; as it appears to be the most time-efficient way to maintain these things. I will not try Windows 7, as Microsoft has a long history of substandard operating systems; my next system(s) will be Macintosh; the tried, trusted, stable platforms that should have been the gold standard in computing from day 1.

i think its realllllllly pathetic how everyone defends their windows computer so willingly. Its obvious their in the dark here and they have NO idea what OSX is all about. i dont think i mind that though, less people on macs, less virus prone. cheap computers were made for cheap people. computers for the masses = PC's, Computers for the future = Macs.. but..dont take my word for it.

If that is what Windows 7 only can do, then I am really dissappointed in it. Microsoft really needs some CREATIVE ideas. Look wat Snow Leopard has. OpenGL, Open CL, Grand Central…. On the other hand, Win 7 only has MINOR "improvements".

I have a MacBook Pro 15" and the start up time is 20 seconds, and the shut down time is 10 seconds, BEAT THAT SUCKER WIN 7!

If you truly believe IT professionals are forcing you to use windows because they are fanboys, you are truly massively misinformed or having paranoid delusions. Most of us use windows in the workforce because we have to. Look at legacy, compatability, 3rd party vendors, etc. as for the reason why. Anyone that was in the field for Y2K, while it was significantly overblown, it still was a pain in the butt, times the software complications of that substantially if you tried to roll onto macs.
And if you want to know why windows gets targeted by malware it is because of its popularity. It isn't because apple is some highly advanced security system. It's strictly a numbers game. Let the majority shift to apple and watch what would happen.
And in closing, I would say most of us IT geeks have been and will continue to be linux fanboys.

@Jason who said: "Windows XP: Went gold August 01

You spend over half the article complaining about upgrading 8 year old software and hardware. Yeah, might pose some problems. Lets compare.

Mac OSX 10.1 Puma: Went Gold September 2001

Now that we're comparing equal products, I wonder how smoothly that upgrade would go.

Oh wait, it wouldn't. That was still 4 years before Mac switched to Intel chips. Sorry, that computer is a boat anchor now."

Oh, really? I'm presently using a Mac that was built in 2001 and sold with OS 9 installed. It is now running Leopard just fine and I expect it to continue for at least a few more years. How many PCs from 2001 can run Vista? (or are even still able to boot at all?)

I've been in the computer business since about 1981, after switching from mechanical engineering to systems programming. My first "personal" computer cost $7,995.

In those 28 years I've learned that UNIX-based operating systems (Linux versions of all stripes, as well as Mac OS which is also UNIX-based) are vastly superior in terms of operating system stability and functionality to anything that has ever come out of Redmond — excluding the version of Xenix (a UNIX derivative) that Redmond produced.

But being better doesn't mean it's easier to use or cheaper to operate. All the computers I've owned that had to do real work, without a human being typing on the keyboard, have run a UNIX-derived operating system. My home internet gateway and all around server runs Gentoo Linux. The computer I use for my business is a Windows Vista system.

I hate Vista. If I didn't know how to work on computers, it would be the most difficult thing to use and keep running. But I can fix most everything broken on Vista, and using what I know about Microsoft products, I have it running better than XP ever ran.

I don't use Linux on my laptops in large part because they come from the store preloaded with Windows — which I think should be illegal. Every computer bought from a store, almost, has a built-in Microsoft tax. And that's why Microsoft is the dominant O/S. I'd re-install them with Linux, but I still have a few apps (mostly things like Quicken) that run on Windows and I need Quicken more than I need having fewer gray hairs.

If Quicken and Turbo Tax ran on Linux, I'd have two fewer reasons to use Windows. I already get my Pandora fix using Linux. Web page authoring, graphical design — Linux tools. Corporate website management — Linux hosting on GoDaddy.

It's just those couple of tools that I can live without that have tied me to Redmond.

Stupid argument. Let the market decide…oh, so far it has.

"•In my tests, [a new feature called HomeGroups] worked, but not consistently, and it required typing in long, arcane passwords."
-Did he notice the click "change password" I saw it right under the arcane password he's talking about. I changed it nice and quickly to something like the 7 most common IT passwords.
Did anyone notice M$ business model? Vista is the same as ME – which got everyone off of 98 only to get them to upgrade to XP when it was release later on.
To quote linux groups – your a PC? and your a MAC? wow I'm a person! I have Vista/Linux/xp and 7-RC and guess what I use – Linux the most.

Here it is in a nutshell most Mac users are not very computer savvy they like their computer experience spoon fed to them that is why they are Mac users. I have used both Macs and PC's give me a PC anyday because I love the versatility of a PC if I want to upgrade it I can if I have a virus or any other issue with it I can fix it. When you have a Mac you have to take it to some jackass at a genius bar who are also Mac users themselves so they really cannot fix anything all that will end up happening is they will send it back to Apple. With my PC give me a few minutes and I can almost fix anything.

I like how all of the apple fans love bashing Vista because the Mac commercials say Vista is a horrible OS.
My sister is like this, she doesn't know much about computers, but she has a Mac. I was going to load vista on my parents computer and she told me that I shouldn't, because vista sucks. I asked her what gave her that idea and she says the Mac commercials say vista sucks. So Windows competitor says Windows sucks and all these Mac lovers believe it like god himself said so.
I'm in IT and have had vista since it came out and have had no issues at all. I also have a Mac book with OSX and for some reason that thing has to reboot because it can no longer connect to the networked hard drive. My vista machines never do that. So in my experience the bullet that talks about Mac being more natural at networking is false.

@ dissapointed by idiots

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I've been using PCs for video & music editing for almost 10 years now, with no problems. Best thing is that if I wanted to try a more powerful program than I could run at the time, all I had to do was go to the nearest computer store and buy an upgraded component (usually the video card).
And guess what? I didn't have to go to a Jobs Church to buy it, either.

Earlier this year a co-worker's wife wanted an imac, so we were comparing specs on the trendy 'status symbol' fruit computer vs the PC. Guess what, the fruit was about 60% more expensive for comparable hardware. We went to several computer sites & priced components and were able to build a killer PC for about $1400, a comparable fruit cost $3000.

Hmmm, pay less than half the price for a computer, have off-the-shelf hardware AND software compatability AND not have to rely the egomaniacal Jobs to decide when & how I can connect to my portable devices or watch a blu-ray movie?

I think I'll skip joining the Cult of Jobs.

I am not a Microsoft fanboy, I just want to use an OS that offers the most convenience. I have used all three versions of Win95, both versions of Win98, WinME, both versions of XP, Win2000 & 3 versions of Vista (including both 32 & 64 bit). Having used all of these (quite successuly, I might add) I can say that most of the Vista/Microsoft bashers simply had problems with outdated drivers and/or loose components and misrepresented isolated incidents as the standard.

Anyone who uses any workstation computer (not a server) without putting it behind a router (with the firewall on) is asking for trouble. That includes all versions of Mac OS, Linux and Windows. This is not rocket science. Anyone to whom this is news shouldn't be earning their living writing technical reviews.

If you believe the swill that Apple passes off as "Advertising", you'd think that they invented the idea of wearing casual (that means denim jeans, a t-shirt, and athletic shoes) attire to work.

If you're going to write about negative things, consider that it's nearly impossible to find an up-to-date web browser for Mac OS 9.x, which means an older Mac is only good for wiping out and starting over with Linux.

This is horribly biased reporting. This sounds like Glenn Beck talking about Obama. Of course upgrading from a 9 year old operating system will be slow and painful. Of course security softward is a good idea even on a mac, but it's not a requirement and most consumers are actually happily unprotected. Blah blah blah.

Apple fans can keep their "OS Zen" (since they seem to think it is almost like nirvana) and their Macintrashes.

Nobody will convince me Windows 7 is gonna suck.

I love Macs but you can't compare Windows7 to MacOS due to one important fact, Hardware.

As a web developer I know first hand how complicated it is to write a site that works on all browsers. Same goes with MAC OS and Windows.

MAC OS has a standard set of hardware that it been compiled to work on. Not much is different. Thats why its performance is so great. Ask a game developer about performance when writing a game for the PC or one on a standard set of hardware like the MAC, XBOX, PS3 etc.

If I was running Apple I'd seriously consider releasing their OS on PC.

Sadly, this will NEVER happen. The reason that everything "just works" on a Mac is because they very tightly control the hardware that the OS runs on. As soon as they open up the OS to be installed on PCs then they'll have to start making and testing thousands of built-in drivers themselves, just like Microsoft does.

Maybe Mossberg just re-uses old columns. A little googling turned up the following:

"All in all, Windows XP is the best operating system Microsoft has ever produced."

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/Wall_Street_Journals_Walt_Mossberg_Slams_Windows_XP/

I have 4 computers in my house. A Win7 Ultimate box, a Vista HTPC, a G4 PowerPC and a Mac Book Pro. I really like my macs but they will never replace the versatility of my Windows machines. OS X is a great OS for quick and dirty productivity but after I upgraded to Vista, I realized that it was more cost effective to do my video and audio editing on my PC. The cost of hardware and the available of utilities were the deciding factors. As a side note, I had no problems whatsoever with Vista except that compared to Windows 7 it does show it's age. Windows 7 is by far better than Vista and I do believe it will stop some of the bleeding to Mac. Also whatsup with not having blue ray devices yet on the Mac ?

I am an apple fan all the way. Apples work brilliantly for integrating between slide shows, movies, music and art. No comparison with windows.

All you Apple cultists take note: Apple in a way is worse than Microsoft. Everything is proprietary (you must buy Apple), everything is overpriced (marketed with the Apple is best concept) and you can't fix it yourself very easily. At least Microsoft licenses out to third party vendors for apps and hardware compatability.
The obvious solution is to go Linux or Unix and support only open-source. Business will never go that way because it needs universal compatability and competitive pricing. Individual users won't go that way because very few people really want to know how a computer works. So all you are left with are the techno-geeks of the world. So I guess the marketing games will continue and people will argue back and forth and all will be right and wrong at the same time.
Unless everyone suddenly wakes up, demands that corporate America step down and force the politicians to bring unfetterred capitalism under control. (Think DRM – who pushes that).

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-7-Bests-Snow-Leopard-Says-Mac-Hacker-121895.shtml

enough said.

OK folks, I have a crappy eMachines – it's seven years old (born in 2002) and it runs Windows 7 (both the RC and pre-release versions) just fine. In fact, it runs 7 better than it ran Vista, and just as well as it runs XP.

And to clear up any thoughts of my bias, I don't have any: I'm not a journalist, I don't work for someone else's blog, I'm not in IT, I don't work for Microsoft, and I've been known to bash both Vista and any version of IE out there, so I have no particular fangirlishness for Microsoft in general. But if they make a good OS I will say so, and this time I think they did.

I just want to clear up some misconceptions that I see both in the recap of Mossberg's comments and in the comments themselves – like many commenters have said, listing a feature (less bloat) and networking, which is actually brilliant on Win 7, as negatives is not the same as telling you what's wrong with the OS – it's quite the opposite. Turning "can't upgrade smoothly from XP to 7" into a three-bullet-point extravaganza is riduclous, and I'll explain why.

First of all, upgrade issues have nothing to do with how Win 7 runs, so they shouldn't even be mentioned in an assessment of how good Win 7 is or isn't.

Second of all, it's not an issue. If you have two hard drives it's really not an issue; copy all your program files over to the hard drive you won't be installing Win 7 on if you're not keeping your program files there already, and install the new OS.

Failing that (you have only one hard drive) Win 7 backs up all the program files for you; you can retrieve them once Win 7 is installed by looking for a folder named C:\WINDOWS.old. Everything you used on XP is in there.

So by upgrading, the only thing you're losing (and you are losing it) are the actual settings for your programs, and some Windows settings such as which browser opens what, which email client should be the default, etc. It's not a big deal to fix that.

Upgrade issues aside, you don't need to and you shouldn't upgrade; just back your files up (which you should be doing anyway) and do a clean install of the new OS. It will run faster and cleaner that way.

Also, someone above this comment mentioned if you disable Aero in Win 7 (for speed or whatever) "it looks just like XP". It doesn't. It looks just like 98/2000 since it reverts back to the Classic style. Of course, the classic style is used on XP, but the XP style is not a native option in Win 7.

Its because apple keeps there software to them self you have dell compaq hp all producing mircosoft computers thats also the reason why they get the most virus ive had my imac for over a year nothing same standard speed ive used 550 of 600 gbs nothing

MAC USER: You should really switch to MAC, it has everything you need and runs flawlessly? No headaches and everything just works.

PC USER: Oh really? what do you use your MAC for?

Posted By Andrew, Stockton, Ca: October 8, 2009 3:42 PM

I am a user of both systems… OS X at home and XP at work. I most definitely prefer the OSX on my MacBook Pro.

The above comments directly reflect that the individual who wrote them has absolutely no idea that Mac's are designed for ease of use AND (most importantly) MUSIC AND MOVIE EDITING! Try and do that on your PC, pal.

Who in their right mind would upgrade the operating system of an existing computer? If you're using Windows XP, keep it. If you're getting a new computer, consider Windows 7.

I'm waiting for the new Google OS … you know it's coming.

Can't you see what is happening here. Apple and Microsoft are busting their heads off trying to produce a machine that will make our world easier to live in and you guys keep on ranting that they will never be the same. Of course they will never be the same just like communists and capitalists, muslims and christians, BMW and Mercedes, etc. Let us just live and let live and think of better things to improve this world like cleaning it up. … N. Valenzuela, Manila, Philippines.

if windows is so bad…why is it on 80-90% of computers worldwide and in 95% of corporations? they have to be doing something that apple isnt doing…

In a very basic nutshell, it's all about marketing, consistency and compatibility.

Justin H., El Dorado, AR nailed this right on the head.

I have been a network administrator for close to 10 years and would LOVE to replace all my laboratory's Microsoft products for safer, more stable products. This, of course, is nothing more than a pipe dream. And job security.

As for my personal machines, I opted for Linux years ago.

Ah, He[[, I'll just stick with Linux Mint 7 and upgrade to Mint 8 when it comes out. I really wish this article would have included Ubuntu 9.10 that will be out in a month or so. There have been studies done comparing Ubuntu 9.04 with Windows 7 beta and Ubuntu came out ahead! Ubuntu 9.10, which is still in beta and already is so far ahead of everything, it boggles the mind.

http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7

Wake up people, it's time to stop being so awe struck by Microsoft and Apple! Linux of today isn't the same Linux of 5 years ago, it's time to try it out.

Preordering from NewEgg as soon as I finish writing! Can't wait for Windows 7.

Just a thought.
If Mac was so unfriendly to viruses and malicious software, the government should mandate its usage in the name of national security and Symantec would be out of business in no time.
Just a thought.

If you work or ever worked in IT in a corporate world, you would understand why Windows is the only way to go… I just read where someone said something like 'let the employees choose the OS'???? Joking right? There's a lot of factors as to why Corporate America is mostly Microsoft Windows. For one, MOST third party vendors that write business applications are written for Microsoft Server OS and Windows Client.

This makes it easier for the IT world to implement software that will benefit their company. Windows has far more compatible third party business benefiting software products than does the MAC.

Most MAC users are not 'Corporate America' users. So.. throw a MAC OS on every machine in a banking environment… and tell me how you will get AS/400 Mainframes, Teller Software, and the Federal Government Apps to run on it?

I remember people saying they would go from XP to Mac over Vista because of compatibility issues. And if you did, you would have far more trouble finding drivers and software to work with MAC over a Microsoft Product. If you like MAC, no offense. But it's unrealistic to say the Corporate World should just drop everything and go to it. That's one of the most unrealistic things I've heard of.

"the best version of Windows Microsoft (MSFT) has produced."

…it's hard for Windows to get any worse…unless somehow when you opened the box a foot popped out and kicked you in the crotch or something.

As a developer and part-time network administrator I agree with the post made by Don, Union, KY.

I have Vista installed on over 15 computers, while XP is still installed on another 15-20. I have never had a problem with Vista. If there is any issue at all, it would be the user experience. I guess you could equate it to going from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 back in the day…just takes some getting use to for the end-user. Other than that, it was a fine OS.

It doesn't matter whether Windows 7 is better or worse than Leopard. Microsoft is going to shove Windows 7 down every PC users throat with OEM versions on all new computers. All the IT guys are going to shove Windows 7 on all older computers as soon as the companies give them some cash to do so. It has nothing to do with what's better for users. It's only about how easy it is for IT people to continue using Windows with the least amount of work.

Corporations are not a democracy. No voting for what computer or OS employees want to use. If one IT guy says let's load Windows 7 and MS Office on 100,000 PCs because the cute female Microsoft software representative smiled at him, then that's what gonna happen. Forget about Macs ever getting into corporations. Microsoft has every corporate IT guy in their pocket. Their heads are so tightly locked into MS products and backwards compatability that nothing will ever change.

There is no war for Apple to win as far as desktop market share is concerned. It's over. Apple lost the war years ago. They literally gave the farm away to Microsoft. All that's left for Apple to do is hold on for dear life to a measly 6% share and try to make some money from it. If you like Windows 7, use it. If you like Leopard, use it. The best is whatever is best for YOU. Most of the people in this world will never see or hear about Leopard or OSX. So, let it go.

Come on at least try to make the effort that you are a bit biased. Where is the faults of Snow Leopard? Here we go: Do you know on some Macs if you upgrade to Snow Leopard will render you 30" Display useless? It happened to a friend of mine. It finally got patched. Also as for security it took a few seconds for fully update Mac Book to hacked where the intruder could take control of the computer.

Let’s wait and see.

I’ve been hearing for something like 20 years how the NEXT version of Windows was going to be just as good as the Mac – if not better. Then, when it comes out, it continues to suck (although, other than Vista, not usually quite as bad as the previous version). Heck, even back in Windows 3.0 days (which was one of the worst operating systems EVER foisted on mankind, the WIndows fanboys were claiming that it was just as good.

Let’s wait until let’s say 2 months after the release and watch how sucky it really is. For example, a number of published reports say that while it is slightly faster than Vista (heck, a drunken slug is faster than Vista), it is still far behind XP on real application performance.

Reviewers praised 3.1, 95, 98, ME, XP, 2000, Vista, and any others that I’ve missed – but users continued to realize that they were miles away from Macs in usability.

As a user of both systems, I will continue to be Mac only, at home. It may not be perfect, but it beats the alternative.

Apple, blah, blah, blah. People think they're cool because they have something different. I have NEVER had a problem with Vista.

I believe that most of the bullet points do show his reasons but I believe that windows 7 is going to be one of the best things that is going to happen. I'm pretty sure that it's going to be a long time before we ever get anything as good as windows 7 in the near future.

I am a network admin of a large windows network. This past spring I switched to a 17" Macbook Pro. I can tell you now I will never go back. Yeah the benchmark tests of Windows 7 out of the box is close to Leopard but run the same test after one year of use. The windows box will be bloated with adware/spyware and background running apps that will kill the performance. I have had my Mac for 7 mos now and loaded tons of apps with no hit in performance at all. Also, you can run Windows in a virtual machine on the mac at the same time so you can have the best of both worlds. I still have some management tools I have to use on XP/Vista because there is no Mac equivalent. The reason MS has so many business customers is hands down MS Outlook. It is by far the best and most integrated mail client out. The mac version Entourage has its limits depending on what version of Exchange server you are running. Microsoft does do a lot of things well but until they ditch the registry in windows OS and go with more of a Unix based OS there is going to be issues. Also, there are so many free apps for a Mac that in the windows world you have to pay for, it saves you a lot of money. I do not have to rebuild my laptop yearly anymore. The backup and restore(timemachine on the mac)works flawlessly, I have used it twice(bought larger hard drive). I can't tell you how many times I tried to restore using MS system restore or 3rd party apps on XPP only to have it fail. I'm not bashing MS because I was a die hard MS fan but not anymore.

I have both (Apple & PC), and as much as I like the speed at which everything works on Apple, I like the fact that everything works on a PC, even if it is a little slower. With all the content out there, it is a shame that Apple has chosen to deprive their users from use of Flash on devices such as iPhone.

I tryed the pre-release version of Windows 7 and i no longer had windows mail. so i had to do a factory restore to put my computer back to normal.
If it wasnt for that id still have it on my computer. I really dont want to run a third party email program.

I don´t think MS is releasing W7 to convince Mac users to go back. They had to react quickly to avoid the massive user exodus because of the Vista fiasco.

Apparently W7 is much better than Vista and that will do it for the moment. Most people worldwide do not need the greatest OS, they just need a good, simple, reliable and economical one. Perhaps Windows 7 is the answer.

I prefer MacOS over Windows. But Windows is not as bad as the applefanboys claim, nor Leopard is as good as they think.

Windows 7 will sell, Apple's market share will shrink from 12% back down to 1.2%. But it won't so much from people reverting back to Windows as it will be from people using an alternative to BOTH platforms (Android, WebOS, Ubuntu, etc.)

The reason why so many companies use microsoft is that they can't afford to upgrade from DOS. Seriously, The majority of retailers still rely on DOS for their inventory management and POS.

The best version of Windows Microsoft has produced.- Translation: rubish is less rubishy this time! buy the premium version!

if windows is so bad…why is it on 80-90% of computers worldwide and in 95% of corporations? they have to be doing something that apple isnt doing…

MAC USER: You should really switch to MAC, it has everything you need and runs flawlessly? No headaches and everything just works.

PC USER: Oh really? what do you use your MAC for?

MAC USER: Checking email and going on facebook.

PC USER: uhhhhhh yea no thanks.

I get the impression this review of "What's wrong with Windows 7," is seriously biased. Of course the intent is to identify issues with the Operating System, however many of the bullets listed are not problems!

For example, the bullet "Microsoft has stripped Windows 7 of familiar built-in applications, such as email, photo organizing, address book, calendar and video-editing programs. [They can be downloaded free of charge.]" is NOT AN ISSUE! You're saying Windows is less bogged down and lean? And I can download those missing apps as I choose… so where's the problem?

Further, a lot of the bullets at the end of the list are all one specific issue: complications upgrading from a Windows XP computer. However, the author conveniently stretched this one subject multiple times, thereby artificially inflating the list of "problems."

For those Apple fanboys who will be upset about this, I'm a Software Engineer major in college, and I hate Microsoft (and Apple, too).

If I was running Apple I'd seriously consider releasing their OS on PC. Vista debacle gave Apple window of opportunity, which is now being closed by Windows 7.
Years ago Apple had similar opportunity to dominate but instead it chose to be niche player, which almost drove the company out of business. I hope they are not making the same mistake twice.

Windows has no chance against Snow Leopard? What planet are you from? There's real reasons that only about 3% of the world's computers are Macs. But hey, Steve loves you and that's all that matters, isn't it. LOL

Windows does the donkey! It's history!

You know, most mac/apple lovers I've known are like most of the fanboys in this comment thread. They just CAN'T understand HOW in the world something SOOOO inferior continues to succeed.

Have you folks ever looked to see how closed system Apple is vs Windows? There's no comparison.

No problem if you don't like it, but quit trying to justify your precious love by bashing somebody else's. It's pretty pathetic.

I'm still trying to figure out this war that has evolved between Apple and Microsoft.
As it stand, Win Vista is just as fine and all the other crap Microsoft threw at us over the years but lets not get started over the Leopard OS. We used to live in a WinWorld and now we want to switch to an AppleWorld. Fine! I use both and let me tell you that the freedom I have on Vista is not even close to Leopard. Everything I do on my Apple has to … HAS TO run through itunes and istore and iworld, please…
Lets not mention the monopoly of Apple, why not hand it out to Dell, Acer or Toshiba so they can install it on other PC (oops I'm NOT a PC)! Tell it simple, my job gets done much better on Windows and I traded my iPhone for a HTC and I gotta admit it blows the iPhone (well not the apps but then again it's a phone… a smartphone). So as it stands, back to Windows it is for me.

Do not listen to any of the supposed "gurus" or "professionals" testimonials. Follow the money–they're paid to say what they say.

Instead be intelligent. Review consumer reports. Review a lot of consumer reports. No 1 person will regard Windows 7 in the same light but if you average the good and the bad you can get an overall picture of the worth of Windows 7.

If you can find thorough benchmarks online you can gauge performance for the OS. Don't ever look at 1 benchmark. Compare as many benchmarks as you can to insure nobody is lying or being paid to show that information.

It's amazing how stupid US consumers are and why our products cost so much $$$ for relatively little quality.

I went grocery shopping with my mother one time to get food for a family party and it was disturbing to find that she was more willing to pay practically double the price for tortilla chips that said "organic" on the bag. Without verifying anywhere whether this was true she didn't think and picked up the bag and put it into the cart.

People are this stupid. I pray that everybody commenting here will make a rational and informed decision about Windows 7.

I don't know what the big deal is with the Vista haters. My Vista 64-bit runs like a dream. Of course I'm not running file-sharing software or any other software that tends to muck with any Operating System. Office, iTunes, World of Warcraft, Chrome, IE, Adobe Software…all work great. I don't plan to upgrade to Windows 7 anytime soon….Vista works fine – not going to chunk it just yet. By the way – I have an OLD Pismo Powerbook still running Apple OS 10.3 on it. It is slow of course, but works just fine for surfing in my lazy boy. My Vista 64-bit is a Gateway Desktop with the AMD Phenom x 4 (DX4200-09) I got at Best Buy with an upgraded 550w Power Supply and NVIDIA Graphics card. Peace and Happy Computing!

A lot of the bullets were pretty weak against Window 7 and any Windows in general from XP+

Networking? Seriously what is so hard about it? Ever since XP came out networking has been almost too damn easy.

Additionally, "restart" times? What machines were running Mac OS and what machines were running Windows 7? If you look at a standard Mac Pro workstation they have some heavy hardware by DEFAULT, what did the Windows computers have I wonder?

It doesn't matter what this guy said about Windows 7, what matters is what it does on it's own merit.

Interesting complaint about Win 7 from the article writer – Mac has more built in applications…apparently the original writer has not paid attention to the nearly billion dollar fines the EU is trying to assess against Microsoft for bundling the applications. If Mac were the dominant OS, they would have to completely change nearly every aspect of their machines to sell anything in the EU (open up the system to outside vendors, remove all the bundled software and/or include options at install/startup to use competitors software, and so on).

Really – you should complain to the EU if you don't like how Win7 doesn't have as many applications included on installation.

i've been upgrading since i had my first PC, 1996-7, who doesnt like the upgrading is 1) free to stay with their current OS 2) dont use a pc (and its not a matter of Windows 7, but since the very first edition of Microsoft Windows), so upgrading, is a false issue

you want a computer ? deal with messing around.

I would love to see stats basing the load times of 7 on all of these pc's compared to the load times of SnowLeopard on the same systems. Oh, wait…

If you're not installing the competing OS on the same machine, comparing apple to pc load times is as moronic as comparing apples to oranges.

This article is stupid. Both Mac and Windows operating systems are garbage. The only reason Mac is even considered a decent os is because they have a very successful marketing scheme, and it is stable because it runs on a Unix kernel. People who don't understand how to use Linux and set-up dual boots, especially in the modern networked world (jfgi) shouldn't have their opinions matter. The author, as well as most people seem to fall into this category.

I am a self-confessed Mac junkie. Love most of what Apple puts out, however I have been checking out Windows 7 over the past few days and I"m very impressed. It feels very slick and runs/loads quickly. I actually have it running inside my mac using VMWare and it doesn't feel slowed down at all.
Would I leave my mac? Never. But microsoft did a good job on this one, I have to say.

If nothing else, I enjoy coming to this web site just to read the comments from people who are truly stupid. Seriously, if you think this article was intended to be a review of Windows 7, you have a reading comprehension problem. Some people apparently missed the "Reading between the lines of Walt Mossberg's review" line at the top of the article.

On a side note, good old Walt is funny. Whether you like him or hate him, his review is unfortunately given way more respect than it deserves. All the same, have we ever seen a terrible review from Walt? He was even complimentary with his Vista review as this article mentions. He is perhaps representative of an "average" user, but he's not technical, nor should we expect that from him.

Windows XP: Went gold August 01

You spend over half the article complaining about upgrading 8 year old software and hardware. Yeah, might pose some problems. Lets compare.

Mac OSX 10.1 Puma: Went Gold September 2001

Now that we're comparing equal products, I wonder how smoothly that upgrade would go.

Oh wait, it wouldn't. That was still 4 years before Mac switched to Intel chips. Sorry, that computer is a boat anchor now.

Generally, Mac upgrades will be easier, because they're release EVERY STINKING YEAR. They've released 12 new Operating Systems in the last 10 years (classic:5 and OSX: 7) For comparison, Windows is about to relase their 5th in the same timespan (not counting server versions)

Mac is the disposable camera of the computing world

Windows Vista may not be perfect, but I don’t think it’s as bad as critics like to think it is. From my personal experience, some of the problem seems to be hardware, not software. I’ve seen numerous problems with Vista on HP and Compaq machines (laptops). My daughter had problems with Vista on her HP laptop, and my business partner, after pulling his hair out over a compatibility issue with a new Compaq laptop, took it back and exchanged it for a Toshiba machine. Not a single problem since. I was so impressed I bought a Toshiba laptop for my wife, then one for myself. Not a single problem. Granted, the operating system shouldn’t be so twitchy that it runs good on one brand, but goes sour with another, but there it is.

I've installed 7 on several XP machines and anyone who thinks it is difficult should not be using a computer in the first place.

As for MAC being less troubled by viruses there is only one reason for that. It is a waste of time to write virus programs for the MAC as there aren't enough of them in use. I could crash any MAC right now if I wanted too. It's easy. The OS is just as vunerable as any other.

Basically it comes down to if you want a toy(MAC) or a real computer(PC). Unless of course you are an artist in which case MAC is the way to go. MAC is the best digital crayon ever made.

Either way WIndows will remain the dominant leader in the computer filed. Aplle has absolutely no chance of ever catching up. None, naad, zip. That you can take to the bank.

I think this man just found a ton of insufficient things to complain about. Windows 7 is a great system to use and like another comment in regards to upgrading from windows xp it isn't as bad as it seems. Windows 7 does the backup for you. Someone tell me what 10 year old Apple OS is easily upgradable with Snow Leopard. Eventually, like every operating system there will be bugs that need to be worked out and Window with quickly and efficiently fix the problem….

Talk about fluff. Most of your list is pure garbage, repeats or beneficial features that you don't like.

-It’s tedious and painful to upgrade an existing computer from XP to 7
-[Vista upgrade is easy] XP owners, the biggest body of Windows users, won’t be able to do that.
-This painful XP upgrade process is one of the worst things about Windows 7

3 times you remind us that the upgrade process is a PitA. Good to know, but a very temporary inconveniece. Once you get through it once, YOU'RE DONT FOREVER. Negative bullet defeated and done. Barely worth 1 bullet point, definitely not worthy of three.

-The variety of editions in which Windows 7 is offered is confusing

Really? Home user: Home version. High end user: Premium version. Uber-geek: Ultimate version. Not hard.

-The system for upgrading is complicated, but Vista owners can upgrade to the exactly comparable edition of Windows 7 while keeping all files, settings and programs in place

Doesn't seem that complicated… unless you're talking about the XP upgrade, which you've already covered THREE TIMES.

-[XP users]'ll have to wipe out their hard disks after backing up their files elsewhere, then install Windows 7, then restore their personal files, then re-install all their programs from the original CDs or downloaded installer files.

Missed this one… add it to the 4 "it's tough to upgrade" bullets you've already listed.

-Microsoft includes an Easy Transfer wizard to help with this, but it moves only personal files, not programs.

Well, yeah. Third party software companies (like, Adobe for instance) probably wouldn't be too thrilled if Microsoft made a feature to pirate their programs between computers. We're up to, what, 6 now "upgrading is tough guys"?

-Then, they have to install all the patches and upgrades to those programs from over the years.

Not even a point on it's own… just a continuation of the above bullet. The majority of the "patches and upgrades" will download silently in the background. That's bullet #7 telling us the woes of the upgrade process, for anyone playing at home.

-On a couple of these machines, glacial start-up and reboot times reminded me of Vista.
-On a couple of others, after upgrading, key features like the display or touchpad didn’t work properly.

Oh no. Minor hardware incompatibility at release. Cry me a river. Then place them blame where it belongs, on the hardware manufacturers who didn't build proper drivers and give them to Microsoft in time. (hint, if whatever company build that touchpad cooperated, there wouldn't be a problem)

-Windows 7 still requires add-on security software that has to be frequently updated.

Not if you're doing it right. I've been running XP and Vista systems for *YEARS* without any anti-virus programs, or spyware detectors… nothing. Put your computer behind a router, stop downloading junk from pirate sites and you're computer won't get scurvy.

-In Windows 7, you can now set the system so it nags you only when things are happening that you consider really worth the nag.

So it's improved, and that's a BAD thing? How terrible it must be, to get a "do you want a virus?" pop-up box.

-In my tests, [a new feature called HomeGroups] worked, but not consistently, and it required typing in long, arcane passwords.

If you don't like the new feature, don't USE the new feature. That pretty much makes this one a wash.

-Microsoft has stripped Windows 7 of familiar built-in applications, such as email, photo organizing, address book, calendar and video-editing programs. [They can be downloaded free of charge.]

I love free. Wait, this is a negative? How? If you have a different email or picture viewing program you like, use that. If not, download the windows version FOR FREE. People complained that Windows came with too much pre-packaged software, and were trying to force themselves upon you. Now you complain about the opposite. Are you sure my 16 year old daughter didn't write this??

End count:

16 total bullets.
9 relating to the tough upgrade process
2 BENEFITS that the writer didn't like
1 Virus issue that's been around for years, not exactly news worthy
1 New feature he didn't like

Meaning 82% fluff, 18% I was just too lazy to address

Yea, I don't get the comment about the 'painful' upgrade process.

I've built 1 machine and installed W7 on 2 others (from XP) and didn't run into any issues. As a matter of fact, W7 found all my drivers and installed them automatically (with one hitch…my ancient laptop has a very old video card and no drivers for it. W7 has since updated that and I now get the areo features). Not a bad track record for a beta product.

Also, it's stable, for all you wondering. I game and run one of those W7 boxes as a media center and haven't seen a crash yet with a variety of media players, games, and various other very resource intensive pieces software.

Until I can get a version of OSX that runs well on a 200 dollar PC. (Yes, you can build a very nice W7 machine for 200 bucks), I'll stick with W7.

(And call me when OSX gets some serious games on it so I can do something other with my nice expensive piece of glass than surf the internet and use Photoshop).

tl, dr
bottom line
macs are win
microsoft will never keep up
microsoft owns something like 45% of apple. lol.

I switched over to an Apple Macbook about a year ago after 25 years with Microsoft machines (worked on my first PC in 1983) and have not regretted it. I installed Snow Leopard a couple of weeks ago and it was so smooth. What a change compared to MS updates! I'm sure Windows 7 will be decent but they are still playing catch up with Apple.

Most of these "problems" can be easily overcome by anyone with even the slightest knowhow. I don't consider myself to be an expert and these issues seem trivial. BTW I've used Mac and Windows: there's nothing wrong with Vista and it's better than OSX, which I find confining and difficult to use. Mac is really intended for low-knowledge users.

@Carter, Richmond, VA

Here's a hint about what DRM really stands for nowadays: Doesn't Really Matter

My DVD's play on my Windows machine. All my music plays on my Windows machine. I can rip my DVDs to encode them for my iPhone on my PC without any issues. Yeah DRM is a real pain in the tail I tell you!

Oh you want to know what else I can do on my Windows PC that Linux and Mac OSX can't with out a lot of tricks and nonsense? That would be watch BluRay movies and other HD content that requires DRM and the best part is there aren't any issues with doing it!

You can't find a video card created in the last 2 years that doesn't have HDCP built in. Same with monitors.

If/when Lord Jobs allows Macs to play BluRay they will have DRM as well.

DRM is such a waste to even discuss anymore. It was a minor pain to a very small amount of people when it was first introduced because drivers were shoddy and hardware wasn't playing nicely correctly. We're well beyond that now.

Take the AMD Radeon HD5870 for example. It has no issues with encrypted HD playback and even allows you to pass encrypted audio through HDMI untouched so that your "DRM infected" receiver can decode the audio stream for true HD audio as well.

Get your facts straight before going on and on about DRM.

This article is repeating some very incorrect facts. One of the most glaring that Mac users love to cite incorrectly is the Mac security. If the journalism was top notch, they could have done some research and found this article: http://www.dailytech.com/Hacker+Apples+Snow+Leopard+Protections+Weaker+Than+Windows+7s/article16273.htm that clearly states Windows 7 (AND VISTA!) have better security measures than Snow Leopard.

Another problem I have with the points is the issue of "having to back everything up just to upgrade". You should be backing up anything of importance regularly to begin with. Even most basic users know this so this is absolutely silly to use as a reason for complications.

It's widely stated in the industry that the best way to upgrade operating systems is to do a clean install. Most people who chose to do the upgrade will be people capable of knowing how to correctly do a clean install. The whole xp upgrade issue is moot.

Lastly, someone commented about how the system requirements can't possibly be lower than xp. I assure you that it is possible. I've tested it before and you have the option to turn off all the "pretty" graphics features of Aero. When you do…it looks just like xp and it's incredibly quick while still keeping all functionality. Shocking I know!

The article is biased and apparently unknowledgeable when it comes to Windows 7.

I am an IT professional and have been for 15 years. While I miss the original, TRUE multi-tasking operating system, OS/2 (no sneers, please) I will not now, nor will I ever, own ANYTHING made by Apple. Not a MAC, not an IPOD, not an IPHONE…nothing. I cannot afford the lack of interoperability and the lack of truly useful software. Upgrading a mac is no piece of cake, and that IS fact. The bias is shameful. Then again, consider the source. Give me an affordable, useful netbook, my blackberry and my portable satellite radios all day long.

Windows seven is a Microsoft jewel… Every so offen Microsoft will put out that very good product to keep you interested, if you buy it or not is up to you. I didn't even get done reading this article, before I began to laugh, yet again at the fact that CNN, once again screws up the message of someone else. GOOD JOB CNN, GREAT WORK, in putting things in your own words yet again… (sarcasm*)

Liek the dude below said… Windows has no chance against apple

The are no problems upgrading an XP machine to Windows 7 and you do not have to backup your files it does that for you. How do I know this, because I have installed Windows 7 on multiple XP machines.

In reply to D from Virginia (posted 8:05AM)…

The arguments for Windows stating that their suite of features for corporate environments gives them the edge over Macs are based in reality. I'm still searching for the reality in your arguments.

It has been fully established that users who run Windows apps on a Mac (even if they need boot camp…. different architectures will require porting!!!) prefer the use of the Mac. An apps argument is baseless.

As for your markup… you complain about a 40% increase over PCs when you plan to buy 2x new computers. Seems to me this is more than the 40% (assuming that number is correct) that you would spend on the one Mac you would actually need.

I don't like the new Windows 7. It makes me feel incapable of doing anything by myself. The operatons that are available are so childish(coming from a 15 year old).Everything is just too easy. And the whole pop-up thing that asks you for permission for everything is a good quility in a computer. If you really think about it, without those pop-ups the computer is just doing things without thinking, like allowing programs to access the internet or other important files on the computer. But I guess if you had Commodo(I don't remmemberhow to spell the program name so bare with me), that wouldn't matter.I think windows went down hill on this attempt on upgrading there systems. XP and Vista will always be the number one system.

Apple 2.0

"Mac news from outside the reality distortion field"

Really?

"Windows 7 has lower hardware requirements then vista or….wait for it XP." By Steve, Madison WI

Huh?? Come again? I can promise you that Win 7 requires more modern hardware than XP. How do I know? Well, I looked at upgrading my 4 year old laptop. It works great on XP.

I would need to double the upgrade costs to go to Win7 because I need more RAM and a bigger hard drive. (I am upgrading my new laptop, maybe this weekend since I got my Win7 Ultimate disk in the mail last night.)

Also, about Mossberg's complaint about networks requiring "arcane passwords," apparently Walt forgot to read the instructions. In fact, starting with Vista, when you set up a home network you can save all the network info to a thumb drive. Go to the next machine, insert the thumb drive, start the networking assistant, and in about 4 mouse clicks you have a network set up. No password entry required. (Although Win7 only works with Win7 in this respect.)

My Vista works just great! XP worked great on my other computer, and Win 98 on another computer before that. Why would I spend hundreds of dollars to upgrade? I'll stick with what I have and upgrade in 7-10 years.

Windows 7 vs Apple Snow Lepoard! Hands down Windows has no chance against Apple. It doesn't get any better than Mac OS X and it more than likely never will

I agree with some of the dissenting commenters. This article focuses too much on XP upgrades and I don't think this person has extensively installed an upgrade from XP to 7 nor understands the why programs shouldn't be transferred straight from XP to 7.

So why not just title the article I hate windows everyone buy a Mac.

Taking the original article and boiling it down to a subest if *ify* negitives is not reporting…

Well unless someone did it about CNN in general…that would be good.

Just cannot believe the bias on this article. I use both Mac and Windows machine. But I am appalled at the bias on this article.

I did read Walt Mossberg entire article in WSJ today. His article was very positive about Windows 7. But at the same time, he is trying to point out some negative about Windows 7.

Quotes from Mossberg's article
"In recent years, I, like many other reviewers, have argued that Apple's Mac OS X operating system is much better than Windows. That's no longer true"

"Now, however, it's much more of a toss-up between the two rivals. Windows 7 beats the Mac OS in some areas, such as better previews and navigation right from the taskbar, easier organization of open windows on the desktop and touch-screen capabilities. So Apple will have to scramble now that the gift of a flawed Vista has been replaced with a reliable, elegant version of Windows."

This particluar article, just took all the negative excerpts and put them together, giving completely different opinion than what Mr.Mossberg try to covey.

This truly is a bad journalism.

Yes, Win7 is a huge improvement over Vista. But don't forget that under the hood, all the evil DRM is still there. It's baked in and will never go away. Microsoft sold their souls to the MAFIAA (MPAA & RIAA). Just remember, you don't own your music and movies. You just have permission (maybe) to enjoy them right now, subject to the whims of the greedy bigwigs in Hollywood.

Outside the reality distortion field, are you f'n kidding me? Here's a fun one you left out in the whole upgrade process. Go find somebody with a 3-4ish year old PPC based Mac, ask them about their upgrade experience to Snow Leopard? I'm sure it’s going to be a whole lot more difficult than somebody upgrading a 3-4ish year old Windows XP machine. You know why? Because you can't upgrade a PPC Mac to Snow Leopard, only Intel Macs can run it. Same goes for some applications and hardware, Intel only Macs. Strange you would leave out such a glaring flaw in your rehash of somebody else’s work when you went out of your way to repeatedly criticize the WinXP upgrade procedure. So much for all those commenter’s praising their Macs lasting 5-7 years. Depending on when you bought it and what it has in it, may last 5-7 years on OSX 10.5 while the Intel Macs are on 10.7 or 10.8.

If you have a working brain and skill to search Google none of the above points mentioned are issues, in the process you will save a ton of money.

There is a misconception that everything works great on Mac. Well it is not true, I have ton of issues with iTunes and can't do half of things MediaMonkey does. Apple sure makes good Hardware their s/w is just as bad as other they just choose to eliminate any feature which can cause issues to end user.

My first generation iPod touch sometime becomes sluggish, slow and unresponsive without any reason. Apple ads make you believe that these things only happen in PC world.

Use your brain and save a ton of money in the process.

"After months of testing Vista on multiple computers, new and old, I believe it is the best version of Windows that Microsoft has produced."

That was precisely what Walt Mossberg wrote in the WSJ on Jan 18th 2007.

So perhaps we need to take his Win7 review with a pinch of salt too?! Clearly, the real test for an OS, is not reviewers, bloggers and consultants, but realtime customers.

And that jury is out.

Wow…just wow.

I love how he harps on the upgrade process from XP to Windows 7 yet ignores the fact that the number of people who will actually upgrade is very slim. Most users only move to a new OS when they purchase a new computer.

The people who will actually do the upgrade aren't Joe Average that lives down the street from you.

How is the variety of editions confusing?

Home Premium – what Joe Average needs
Professional – Home Premium + domain abilities
Ultimate – everything

Those are the three that 90% of the consumers will see. Starter and Basic are for specialized markets and won't be seen on retail shelves.

Love how he complains about UAC but ignores the prompts in OS X for the root password.

I'm going to stop now…this guy just isn't worth the time.

mossberg is clueless. he has a large soapbox in which to stand so companies rush to appease him. his assessments are so basic in nature its actually pitiful.

I'm not sure why I even read Fortune anymore. Every tech writer here is Walt Mossberg's lap dog and just summarises what he wrote. If I want to read Walt's stories, I'll just go to WSJ.

Wow. This is a complete mischaracterization of the original article. Anyone who is genuinely interested in Windows 7 should go and actually read Mossberg's review.

There are way more Mac apps than there ever have been, and the dramatic thing you notice when going from Windows to Mac is that the apps are, almost without exception, far better than the windows versions.

Plus, you can still run all the Windows stuff if you want to, no problem, no hassle, usually faster than on comparable, generic, windows hardware.

Keep telling yourself that Macs are a 'tiny percentage' of all users. Fact is, Macs are doubling about every 18 months. If you think Microsoft is not concerned about this, why do you think they are targeting Apple with those incredibly misleading ads of PC shoppers whom Microsoft PAYS to buy the lowly PC?

Macs have it all over PCs, and the price difference is negligible. It's like getting a ferarri over a ford for an extra $200. All the PC fans make it sound like it's 'twice' as expensive or something of that sort, which is frankly ridiculous. Get the Mac, you won't be sorry. And even if you were, you have real people in any Mac store that won't simply pass the buck. Try getting help from Microsoft, it's simply NOT there.

Windows 7 has lower hardware requirements then vista or….wait for it XP. Unless your pc is 5 or more years old you will not need to buy a new machine to run Windows 7.

More biased journalism. A listing of negatives of the PC OS by an author who makes $$ by writing about Apple is sheer nonsense.

No businessman would consider having a system built on a network of MACs. No artist would consider using a PC over a MAC (gross generalization but essentially true)

Wow you were really digging for things to complain about. Your gripes all seem to boil down to the pain of the XP upgrade process. If I were running a 10 year old version of Mac OS I might have the same problems upgrading to snow leopard.
If anyone bothered to program viruses for Mac they would have the same security problems as Windows. PC world recently had an article about how windows 7 is actually more secure then Snow Leopard.

Windows 7 has potential…for new users. Although it is much easier to use and less headaches for the end user.(but not by much) I'll stick with Apple's way of upgrading and keep it as seemlessly easy as dragging and dropping files onto my hard drive and saying "Yes to All."

At least you could do your own research and write your own column. This is pitiful. Half the Cliff notes from someone else's work. This is a summary of a summary.(and not even a good one)

Very good article, it was useful information.

Tom in Boston – if your Security Director is going to spend months upgrading 250 pcs to W7….you need a new security director. A good IT professional, in an office with more than 15 or so users, would follow the below (or very close) for any OS upgrade – regardless of PC or MAC.

Build out a couple of new boxes in a lab
Test out security, application functionality
Tweak configuration appropriately

That should take a few months, has nothing to do with MSFT, APPLE, LINUX or anything else, that's just good practice.

From there, images should be created for the different work types (designers, accountants, etc), and groups should be rolled out to. A single person could very easily image 250 computers over the course of 3 nights, if they are in a single location.

Vista, 7 and MAC:

As an avid network professional & Microsoft fan now working in Education – we have a mixture of Windows (XP) and MAC systems to accommodate the variety of benefits each OS has to offer. I have played with Windows 7 and although I have not performed much research I can say that an older machine that was "Vista Capable" and was dog slow running Vista even after memory upgrades and ultimately leading me to purchase a MacBook Pro – that older PC ran Windows the RC version of 7 beautifully. Although I am sure there are numerous updates – to me Windows 7 is SP3 to Vista and it is a shame that Microsoft couldn't recover some of their loyal customer base with lower upgrade prices…

Vista had at least 5 different version (Home, Home Premium, Business, Enterprise and Ultimate) – we are limited to 3 with 7 which is a change for the better – the upgrade path for us and many companies I consulted with previously would be the (dreaded by users) imaging/rebuild path; upgrading in windows always leaves so many unnecessary files which can lead to slower performance… (an arena Apple has Microsoft beat)

MAC vs. Windows, well even after incorporating a Mac server and working with another district all Mac – where Microsoft leads is collaboration & software offerings/compatibility. If you want a machine that itself could be structured as a web/ftp/smtp (SMTP only on XP)/file/print/disk quotas/shadow copy/router/telnet server, Microsoft domain management components and controlled through a centrally managed core (all built in to XP/Vista and 7) hands down Microsoft has Apple beat – in a corporate environment there is no question why Microsoft is leading the pac, too often we overlook these feature rich set – the core of Windows server functions are offered in each edition of Windows in some limited format.

Apple; however, offers a home rich and fast performing OS with a beautiful appearance about it. It's this performance where Apple has Microsoft beat and why graphical/multimedia applications and companies (or classes in my case) push for the Mac OS. An application (on a Mac) is compiled into a single file with the libraries of functions built in and easily upgraded (with a simple replace of the prior application file) vs. Windows that is comprised of DLLs (which offers the ability to share functions between applications) scattered throughout the system and registry entries littered throughout causing many difficulties with failed installations/removals and why upgrading a PC potentially offering slower performance (hence why the IT staff likes to reimage rather than fix).

One note though, the complaint of the registry by Apple is the reason why they currently cannot offer (in my opinion) a more collaborative environment themselves, the registry, a database of entries (replacing inf/cfg files of the past) that holds configurations of the OS and applications… it is because of this you might not have a "Run" in the start menu or perhaps why your My Documents points to a network path – this registry obviously can degrade performance, but it is because of this a business, educational or otherwise can offer the staff/students(hackers a tightly controlled environment which is better managed offering users what they need access to.

Apple may offer more productivity options with the OS, Microsoft offers so much more with theirs; perhaps and most likely, things you would never want or need and therefore for home, I will admit that the Mac OS is easier, less complicated and holds a shared status about it – when you open your Apple MacBook at a coffee shop, it is much more elegant then pulling out your 17 inch IBM think pad; where as Microsoft is clearly more compatible and much better in a corporate environment then any current alternative. (this coming from a biased Microsoft network certified professional – I have had limited experience with Linux/Unix environments but so has a majority of the rest of the population and therefore there is also better support for Microsoft products out there…)

In conclusion, the perfect solution for me, a Apple MacBook Pro boot camped to Windows 7. College students may receive Windows 7 Professional upgrade (also Home, but WHY? They are the same price) for $29.99! http://www.win741.com/ (01/03/2010) other alternatives to the upgrade is Windows 7 Ultimate discounted for Students/Educational employees at < $99.99 (http://www.onthehub.com/).

I've been using Windows 7 too. It runs a lot cleaner that Vista. As for the lack of software, Microsoft is just lazy because the EU told them they couldn't, but anyway, I don't even use some of the stuff they bundled, so I'm glad they stopped, besides you can get the software through Windows Update it you choose to receive all Microsoft Updates and not just Windows updates.

In no way is this a fair synopsis of the WSJ review. The full article balances praises with faults. CNN seizes only on the faults.

Thank you for your article. I think though, that bullet point 4 and the last 6 bullet points really are just one bullet point. The last six bullet points are just sub bullet points for bullet point 4. You cannot upgrade from XP to windows 7, period. Microsoft has provided a tool that saves the user's data, but you have to flatten your XP box and reinstall the OS and all of the programs.

I bought a new laptop last year with Vista pre-installed. What a disappointment. It is a giant leap backwards from XP. Thanks Microsoft for letting us upgrade to Windows 7 as long as you are willing to fork over at least $120 to rid yourself of Vista. If they had any sense they would offer free upgrades to anyone who was suckered into buying Vista in the first place.

This is Microsoft's MO. Good OS, Bad OS, Good OS, Bad OS.

win 3.1 – terrible
win 3.1.1 – very stable
Win 98 – very stable
Win ME – TERRIBLE
Win XP – very stable
Win Vista – TERRIBLE
Win 7 – very stable?

I'm a creative professional that switches back and forth between Windows 2000, XP and Vista and OSX and 2 boxes. I'm in a IT office with big time security passing big $$$ over IP.

I could give a care about what system or software I use. I just need to know it works.

Many businesses will be buying new hardware to run 7. I know my director of security will spend months upgrading software on 250 workstations when it's time to upgrade. Image the time to upgrade corporations with thousands of workstations!

For people that have worked on Mac's before, the argument between Mac and PC is so old it's not even worth talking about.

Fact is any company is 100 times better off dumping their pc's and going all Mac before upgrading software and hardware to 7.

The guy who wrote 'cash for clunkers' is dead on. I've been much happier running windows 2000 over XP and that outrageous piece of trash Vista.

I love macs but just can't afford one right now.

I've been using Windows 7 Ultimate Beta 64bit for about 3 months and it works great, no software incompatibility and no crashes or freezes. I think it's much more stable and compatible than XP and I run some high end programming and graphics software. Windows 7 64bit seems to use about 300mb less ram on my computer and runs faster, boots faster and less annoying with popup warnings and such. My computer is a dual 3ghz with 6gb of ram.

@ Robert
You have to be kidding me!!! Buy another computer to get Win 7. Sounds expensive to me! And PC users always lament how Mac's cost sooo much more. Most Mac users have their computers for 5-7 years before buying a new one! PC users have to buy a whole new computer to stay current – Ha Ha.

I spoke to another PC user that stated he owned two PC computers – one he kept off the internet to prevent viruses, and the other he exposed to the internet. Two computers!!!!!

And they call Apple users Sheep! Man what PC users have to put up with because of Microsoft! And this is the best they got after 2-+ years of stealing ideas from Apple!!!! I'll keep using my Mac thank you very much.

Once you have Mac there is no way back.
My family switched to Macs two years ago after twenty years of being with PC. What a difference in terms of reliability and usability. Mac comes loaded with everything you need and in general software for Macs has better quality and functionality.
And there is no annoying anti-virus slowing down everything you do.

to your comment about security.. Microsoft just made their full antivirus solution free to consumers. http://www.microsoft.com/Security_essentials/... Hey Thanks Redmond!

Does anyone care about the operating system anymore? Everyone spends all their time on the web these days. The only part of the OS that matters is the browser.

I upgraded from XP to Windows 7 RTM and the installation did not re-format my hard drive. All my files were intact although I did have to reinstall all my programs. After everything was running smoothly, I used disk cleanup (CLEANMGR) to remove the old XP files.

Some people are trying to make this sound worse than it really is. It is a new OS, so of course, many drivers are incompatible but they will have that sorted out soon unless you are using outdated software. I have been using 7 since build 7100 and now I am using the retail Pro version and have not had any major problems. Also the install process is pretty straight forward. My mother upgraded her machine last night in about an hour and the only problem she had was no sound, but Windows Update automatically downloaded it and installed it and she loves it so far. Is 7 better than XP? It depends on what you are wanting to do with it, but for the majority of computer users who just surf the web and play some games, 7 will be great for them. In my opinion, this is 100% better than Microsoft's experiment gone bad known as Vista. I used Vista 64-bit for some time and 7 has been a much better experience so far.

I use both Windows 7 and Snow Leapord side by side and the edge DEFINITELY goes to Windows. Apple has still not even figured out how to create something as simple as a decent file manager with scalable (real-time) thumbs. Finder? Give me a break. Additionally, the "test" that this reporter has done was with Windows 7 BETA and it STILL "equaled" OSX!! LOL! Apple fan boys aside, Windows 7 is solid and blows OSX out of the water. Oh…and I am using Windows 7 RTF (MSDN), not the beta. Oh…and half of the "what's wrong" bullets deal with upgrading from XP, which is something that someone would do ONCE. Anybody try to upgrade OSX on a pre-Intel Mac? Want to lets us know about THAT experience?

ex ped: I believe Mossberg was reviewing the final release, not a beta.

Considering that even Microsoft acknowledges that Vista was not a good release, they should have more reasonable upgrade prices for Vista users.

Windows 7 is everything Vista should have been on day one. It is not radically different, just has a lot of rough edges smoothed out. Think of it like Vista SP10.

Any praise for a product that has this many flaws only raises questions about the author who chooses to mix words rather than call it straight and like it is.

Mossberg is obviously making sure his ass is covered and that he doesn't rock the good old boy's boat too much.

Mossberg you are either very mediocre or just yellow.

As much as I have hated the Microsoft OSs in the past, and have to admit that XP was the best which they had at that time, I must admit that Windows 7 is an improvement over XP. I have a netbook with a stripped down version of XP running on it (for performance reasons) and installed Windows 7 with no significant tweaking, just limiting the programs installed. Windows 7 boots as fast, and comes out of hibernation faster than XP. Windows 7 is more stable than XP as well. I would recommend moving to Windows 7 from XP, but there is no rush to do so.

The number of XP-to-7 upgraders will be huge. And most of them will probably buy new machines, I know that's what I've been waiting on. I'll probably buy two new boxes with Windows 7 when the xmas sales start up.

Win7 gets rave reviews from actual Windows users, and even decent reviews from Mac people — sounds like a winner to me.

And just to join the argument fun:

As for Macs? Who cares? 12% of America? 85% of whom also have PCs? Cry me a river.

As Apple themselves have proven with the iPhone App Store: "It's the apps, stupid."

There are like 10x more Windows apps than Mac apps. For big names that have versions for both, the Windows versions almost always come out earlier than Mac versions. Given the market share numbers, especially on the business side, software makers would be foolish to prioritize otherwise.

When OSX can natively run all my Windows apps, and provide a /significantly/ better OS than Win7 (even this Mac writer says the edge is small), only then will I consider paying the 40% Apple hardware markup.

But right now, we're in a recession, Windows 7 will be cheap from OEM sources, and anyone buying a new machine would get a lot more bang for their buck with a PC.

Of course, if people /really/ want bang for their buck, they'll buy a used XP machine for $50 on Craigslist. :-p

My 2 cents.

D

Windows 7? I used PC's for years and installed all the upgrades to Windows from 95,98,98 2nd edition,millennium, XP 1,2 and 3. When Vista came out, I was afraid to upgrade because of the bad press. All during this time my computer kept getting slower and slower and slower. Finally got sick of it and bought an IMAC. The IMAC is not perfect but it is damn close to it. I have had it for 2 years now and it is as fast as it was the day i bought it. The jury is still out on Windows 7 and it will be some time before the bugs are worked out if ever.

Who cares if it is better or worse than other OSes? What really matters to the masses of current Microsoft users is whether it is a worthwhile upgrade from XP (where most people still are) or from Vista. 95% of business users and 80% of home users really don't have the option to switch to Mac or anything else just because they are better than any Windows release.

This comes from a Mac devotee since 1984.

Two weeks to upgrade to XP? Sounds like you might want to eliminate some programs. If you have a separate partition or hard drive you can install all that stuff on a non-Windows partition and not have to worry about having to reinstall everything. By the way Mark B….an upgrade editon of Windows 7 is not that terribly priced. Yes Mac OS X is cheaper, but they've had almost EIGHT releases of OS X over the last ten years. At over $200 worth of upgrades over ten years for the Mac OS its not so bad to upgrade from XP to Windows 7. Those upgrading from Vista to 7 have a little more reason to feel cheated, but for people like me getting a new PC the OS is included.

Apple has a great opportunity, a cash for clunkers program: trade in a vista or xp machine for a new apple computer and get $29 cash, the cost of snow leopard…

I will upgrade my Vista machine (Eligible for free upgrade) but I wouldn't try to upgrade my XP machine if they gave me a free copy

as a business owner …who is running 3-4 year old computers with XP, this is what I was waiting for… no vista..no upgrades.. I wont bother trying to upgrade the software…ill just buy new computers with the new 7 software installed.. and if 7 wasnt good… I would just keep running on XP…

I have been using windows 7 for the last year ( yes beta etc ) and it has been a pleasure , but a few things really bug me,

Cost of upgrades ( and original full version )
and how many different versions ( specific versions for joining a domain what a pain ) If they could fix those issues it would be outstanding, lets see if greed wins or not.

So bottom line, Windows 7 is much better and the tiny, tiny group of people that prefer Macs will continue to prefer Macs? Wah?

Frankly, most corporations will deploy Windows 7 by re-imaging existing computers (if they are powerful enough to run it) or on newly purchased PCs as a part of their normal upgrade cycle. It's very rare when IT stffers will try to upgrade an existing PC without a wipe (heck, I like an excuse to wipe my users' PCs, gets rid of the crap they keep loading without permission!) Most of your "problems" won't bother us.

Most home users don't upgrade their OS, they get a new version of Windows when they buy a new computer. So again, the problems won't be problems.

As for the rest of the "problems", your complaints are a bit on the rediculous side… Windows 7 is going to require "add-on security software that has the be regularly updated"? That's the dumbest complaint of them all! Anti-virus software usually comes bundled with Window by the computer manufacturers as a trial version. Why trial? Because you have to pay for a subscription for that software. Why? Because the AV companies have to *gasp* pay their people to research the constant new threats to add them to their AV definitions, the "frequent updates".

Do you also complain that cars require add-on fuels that have to be constantly replensihed? How about the human body requiring additional nutritional materials that must be consumed on a regular (frequently 3+ times daily_ basis? Oh, and those gas stations and restaurants DARE to expect you to pay?!?

As others have said, you've tried to cherry-pick excuses people should dislike Windows 7, but most of the complaints you chose are really rather rediculous. They won't affect most users for one reason or another, or there are rational explanations that you are apparently unwilling to admit to, since they would quickly show most of your "problems" to be anything but.

ex ped: I think you've confused Walt Mossberg with me. Those were his caveats, not mine.

What about Ubuntu? Works great, costs nothing

Thanks for the great list. I found it a bit suspicious that he called it the best OS Microsoft ever put out and not simply the best OS available. Obviously OS X is still better but I can understand his reasons for trying to keep the review positive. I think everyone is tired of kickin the old man when he's down and should at least give Microsoft credit for making an OS that is at least usable. Unfortunately I agree that it will take a few years for real penetration as the bulk of it will have to come from PC sales not upgrades. By then Apple will be out with OS 11.

"A columnist of a "Mac 2.0" column cherrypicking all the negative comments from an otherwise outstanding review of Windows 7!?! Big surprise! The arrogance of the Mac folks is amazing."

Um….I guess you dont catch his column much. He is a MAJOR mac critic. I would say this is one of the few times he hasnt found a way to highlight the worst implication of a story for AAPL

It took me 2 weeks to upgrade to XP. Now, with Microsoft's "Easy Transfer" wizard, and having to re-format the hard disk (Huh?) and re-install all of my 150 programs, games, and upgrades, what, it should take 6 months? By then Microsoft will be pushing Windows 8.

A columnist of a "Mac 2.0" column cherrypicking all the negative comments from an otherwise outstanding review of Windows 7!?! Big surprise! The arrogance of the Mac folks is amazing.

Sounds like AAPL has a window of opportunity here that is 6-9months long to continue their switcher momentum. Only people whose workplace immediately upgrades to the new OS(very few) and those who buy a brand new computer are likely to notice windows 7.

At the ruinous prices they are charging for an upgrade, I am not sure what % of people will rush out to buy it. Enthusiasts I suppose.