Jason Abrahamson

I’ll warn you, this isn’t going to be one of those gooey light reviews where I tell you about all the whiz bang features Windows 7 has for updating your blog. I’m not going to dwell on AERO or rotating backgrounds, no, the intent of this Windows Vista vs Windows 7 is to highlight the startling night and day difference in usability of the product.

Windows Vista reminded me Windows ME. Windows ME was arguably the single worst operating system Microsoft has ever shipped. I’d have traded you Windows ME for Windows for Workgroups ANY day of the week. The concept of stability was laughable, and if you could get your hands on Windows 98 SE you bolted to your computer to rid yourself of this new “Millennium Edition.” Now Windows 2000 and Windows XP were both great upgrades — a lot of that can be contributed to being built on the NT kernal, but more than anything they weren’t rushed to market or simply lipstick on a pig.

Windows Vista was a 6 year long project that was about the furthest thing from a rushed to market product as you could get. In its numerous different transitions it went from a minor upgrade to XP to a complete overhaul of XP. Unfortunately though, Microsoft missed the boat on this one. Those of us forced to use Vista did it begrudgingly, and seeked any opportunities to rid ourselves of the operating system. Businesses were so against Vista they continued to deploy and purchase new hardware with XP downgrades.

Nobody liked Vista, nobody wanted Vista, and after the fanfare died down everybody dreaded Vista.

It would take Microsoft another two years before they would be able to write the ship: Windows 7.

Compared to Vista, Windows 7 performs much faster. Personally I tested it on VM against hardware running Vista — the VM won. The operating system ran efficiently and with little lag on even the oldest of systems. Unlike Vista, I was actually able to install and utilize Windows 7 on a workstation with a mere 512mb of ram. Sure just about any hardware platform you buy now will have at least 1GB or 2GB of ram, but that’s not the point here. The point is that Microsoft has created a new product that by in large runs faster on older systems than the old product. This is an astounding feat for Microsoft.

Windows 7 also has something Vista lacked — un-obnoxious UAC controls. There was arguably nothing more annoying about Windows Vista than UAC controls. The feature was so annoying and so bad that it couldn’t help but remind you of a overbearing mother who wanted to wrap their child in bubble wrap and foam. There was no good in-between, it was either on or off. Windows 7 took a step in the right direction when they gave users much more effective, and accurate, control over the UAC features.

Businesses are embracing Windows 7 though, even in light of the fact Microsoft has extended the downgrade option to a monumental 2020 making the system around for at least 19 years years. This is a startling contrast to Vista as it was shunned by businesses and customers alike. Windows 7, much like Windows XP is an incredibly stable and powerful workhorse, businesses can embrace it, and jump in with both feet. I’ve been working on getting Windows 7 deployments going, as well as complete migrations to Windows 2008.

Rest assured the differences in stability, usability, and overall user experience is a startling contrast between Vista and Windows 7. I highly recommend anybody that is still gun shy begin to embrace it. It’s here to stay, and was well worth the wait.

I know lately I’ve just been mac bashing, and I promise its purely a coincidence, but I had to share this with everybody. One of my cohorts at work nearly lost his Apple after doing system updates. He said “you know this is what i hate about mac. Its such a black box, it either works or it doesn’t. Forget troubleshooting, at least with windows you know it won’t work so you get used to troubleshooting.”

I replied with a CLASSIC Apple Switch parody where the guy literally drop kicks the G4. This has been around for years and is arguably the single best Apple Switch parody ever.

I’ll conceded that I (nobody special) am particularly critical of Steve Jobs and his larger than life narcissistic personality that radiates from everything Apple, but he did make some good points at D8. One of which was the future of computing. Though I agree that there will be a continued shift into mobile computing, I don’t entirely agree with his viewpoint. His otherwise cynical and poor comparison of “trucks” to “PCs” leaves me wondering if he’s really paying to the car market — especially since leading right up to $5.00 a gallon gas GM was the world’s largest automaker selling Trucks and SUV’s.

For those of you that don’t know what I’m talking about, Mr. Jobs said that PC’s would be pushed aside in favor of smaller more compact technologies like tablets and smart phones (and in an effort of full disclosure, he was describing the “personal computer” including Apple). His analogy was that of people moving away from Trucks, or large vehicles if you will, in favor of smaller compacts as they moved from rural areas to the metropolitan city.

Though I agree, and have stated before that I think mobile computing is the next big wave, I don’t see it eliminating PC’s, in fact, I think it will grow it.

See the problem with Job’s analogy is that he doesn’t understand his customer, or more specifically he does understand his customer, all 4% of the personal computer market share. A survey done as late as 2009 shows that Americans to this day still want their cake and eat it too. This one highlights that Americans don’t want smaller cars, they just want more fuel efficient cars. Americans, who are the largest consumers in the world, don’t want smaller things, they like big things. Big powerful things.

American’s don’t want smaller more portable TVs, they want big energy space saving TVs. How many people’s houses do you walk into and they brag about their 12inch TV? The largest consumers in the world want it all. They want PC’s and phones. They want an iPhone, and a Laptop. Heck they even want a tablet.

As my father always use to tell me, you can’t change a zebra’s strips. People still want a traditional computer, with a traditional keyboard, and a nice big traditional screen. If they didn’t then Dell and HP wouldn’t make 17 inch screen laptops that weigh next to nothing. Going further, businesses who are among the quickest to adopt and embrace new technologies, are also among the slowest to phase out antiquated technology. I can’t tell you how many NT 4.0 ADP server’s I’ve seen in my career.

Every generation has an evolutionary path. This generation is the entitlement and no-patience generation. That generation is going to lead the mobile revolution with their desire for on demand media all the time. The second problem with this generation is they’re rarely if ever satisfied. They, probably more so than their parents, want it bigger, they want it better, and they want it faster — if they didn’t shows like “My Super Sweet 16″ and “Suzy Orman” wouldn’t exist. People would buy watches they could afford and wouldn’t have to wait till Suzy told them they couldn’t.

So though I agree mobile technology is the future of the industry, I disagree with Jobs that it’s going to eliminate the PC. I think if anything its going to drastically increase the desire for a PC. Take my brother for example. He is by no means a computer aficionado but he thought the iPhone was a cool toy (and it is). After buying the iPhone he ended up buying a new computer for himself. Puzzled I asked why, and he said “This does things my iPhone doesn’t.” It will be impossible to take the entire computing experience and cram it onto a tablet or a smart phone. If they did that then it wouldn’t be something new, it would just be a really small computer — and as we said before, people, specifically Americans, don’t do anything small. They want it bigger, they want it better, and they want it faster.

So I have to agree with the equally narcissistic, but notoriously bad tempered Steve Ballmer on this one. Ballmer addressed job’s assessment of a shrinking PC market and said he saw a growing one — I see that too. I also see a larger piece of the pie going to Apple in the future (sorry Ballmer) that is if Job’s doesn’t drive the company into the ground first (sorry Jobs).

Will see how it all plays out, oh, and not to change the subject, but for those of you cheering that Apple has surpassed Microsoft in market value keep something in mind. Steve Job’s the man is estimated to be about 1/8th of Apples Market value, which means that if he died tomorrow Apple’s value would theoretically lose $25 billion dollars. It’s also worth noting that Enron, Lehman Brothers, and Bear Sterns proved it doesn’t matter how much you’re worth, its about how much you make.