See your link here
Who cares about Windows 7?
21 comments- TAGS:Windows 7
- IT TOPICS:Windows & Microsoft
Someone from Microsoft is giving a presentation tonight on Windows 7 at a local computer user group. Debating with myself over whether to attend, made me think, who really cares about Windows 7?
Certainly the presenter will be preaching to the choir, computer user group members. But there probably won't be many dentists, plumbers, lawyers, photographers, nurses or musicians in attendance. Only techies care about operating systems and techies are far outnumbered by (for lack of a better term) normal people.
To the silent majority of non-techies, a new release of Windows is nothing but aggravation to be dealt with: software incompatibilities, hardware incompatibilities, mandated software updates and a new interface to learn.
This is not, in any way, a judgment on the technical pros and cons of the new operating system, rather it reflects the reality that most people use a computer to get work done, and the best thing the operating system can do is get out of their way.
Microsoft wants Windows to be a front and center thing. But outside of the IT world, it's not, it's just the foundation. Like any foundation, it belongs out of sight.
Non techies care about their applications, not the underlying operating system.
How many people would have switched to Macs if it couldn't run Microsoft Office? Very few.
Vista was a failure in the marketplace. But how much of that failure simply derived from not being Windows XP? And from Windows XP being good enough?
The huge delay in releasing Vista let XP seep into the collective consciousness. It's the most popular operating system on the planet. Millions of people with no interest in or aptitude for computers, struggled to learn Windows XP. And now that they know how to use it, how many are going to willingly switch to a new release of Windows, one that forces them to change the way they work?
Willingly is the key here. No one advertises the fact that you can still buy a new computer with XP pre-installed. No doubt every salesperson in every computer retailer tells customers that XP is not available. Yet, it is, just not at retailers (excluding netbooks of course).
How many people buying Vista based computers at a brick and mortar retailer choose to go with Vista? That is, they knew they could get either XP or Vista and wanted Vista? The few that did, probably feared that XP wouldn't be a viable option in the years to come.
Of course, it turns out that Vista is the operating system that won't be a viable option in the future. The popularity of Windows XP guarantees that all new software and hardware will work with it. Anyone creating software or hardware would be fool to ship a product that doesn't work with XP. Windows XP is too big to fail.
Has Microsoft been forced to extend the life span of XP time and time again because Vista is that bad? Maybe not. Maybe some failure was built-in.
Windows XP remains the path of least resistance for non-techies. It will continue to have the best hardware and software compatibility for quite a while. And, it's what they know.
BUSINESSES
Businesses will be slow to adopt any new version of Windows due both to their need for backward compatibility as well as reliability. Windows XP is pretty much debugged by now. Everyone knows that a new version of Windows isn't fully baked when it's first released (fool me once, yada yada yada).
When Windows 7 is eventually judged to be reliable, then businesses will consider the bang for the buck. Will Windows 7 offer enough benefit to justify the time, effort and expense of upgrading? Many evaluated Vista and passed on it - even Intel. Even businesses that judge Windows 7 worthy, are likely to wait until the first service pack before seriously committing to it.
Certainly businesses have learned to deal with XP by now. Windows 7 will likely necessitate big changes to the in-place, functioning, paid-for and familiar infrastructure. It has a high hurdle to climb.
CHILDREN
Children don't belong on Windows at all.
There's too much malware out there and keeping all the software on a Windows machine up to date is too hard. As for standard defensive measures: UAC is too confusing, running as a restricted user is too often impractical and dealing with anti-malware software is certainly too much to expect.
Children are best served with a Linux based netbook running Firefox and Open Office.
Why Linux rather than a Mac?
For one, it's significantly cheaper. Kids break things and better they break a $350 netbook rather than a $1,200 Apple laptop.
Also, their small fingers are a great match for the small keyboards on netbooks. And the small size of netbooks makes them easier for children to carry around.
Linux is also easier to maintain. Despite the plethora of malicious comments directed at me for criticizing some Linux software update applications, the fact is that Linux is on the right path when it comes to updating software.
All the distributions I've sampled defaulted to automatic self-updating (my gripes were directed at manual updates) and all the software gets updated, not just the software from the OS vendor. Both Microsoft and Apple update their own software, but only in Linux does the operating system keep all the installed software up-to-date. This goes a long way to making the end user safer.
So who, in the end, other than a handful of techies, cares about Windows 7?
Print
Email this
Digg this
