Review: Microsoft Windows 7

Actually, this isn’t a review, but an announcement that there will not be a review of Windows 7, because I find Windows 7 to be inexplicable.

After all, why in the world would I want to downgrade 88 versions from Windows 95?

I’m here all week, folks.

Like this site? Support it by buying Jammer a coffee.

◄ Blog Home Page

19 comments on this post

Thursday, October 22, 2009, 5:21 pm (UTC -5)

I agree. Even OSX is better, being at version number 10. But worst of all is Linux. Version number 2! How laughable is that?

Thursday, October 22, 2009, 6:21 pm (UTC -5)

Hmmm, my version of SuSE Linux is 11.0 so I must be 4 generations AHEAD of the new windows.

Greg M
Thursday, October 22, 2009, 10:57 pm (UTC -5)

I like XP very much thank you.

Thursday, October 22, 2009, 11:02 pm (UTC -5)

I’m still running XP on my desktop, which is a seven-year-old machine and it runs great considering the age of the hardware. Vista is on my laptop, which I got the day Vista was released (the laptop, that is). Vista had compatibility issues with devices like my MP3 player at the time, which was not compliant with Windows Media Player. And Vista, let’s face it, was annoying. The UAC was rightfully panned.

Windows 7, I hope, will be worth an upgrade. I’m due for a new computer, and it may end up running Windows 7 if I don’t end up building it and installing my existing software.

Still, I’ve always been partial to the look of XP. Really nice. Vista and 7 look too much like Mac OSX.

Matt L
Friday, October 23, 2009, 2:21 am (UTC -5)

Heh! That was classic. What can I say? I’m easily amused.

On a more serious note I’m looking forward to putting Windows 7 on the new computer I’m building. From everything I’ve read it sounds like a solid update. I just wish Microsoft didn’t charge so damn much for it.

Friday, October 23, 2009, 10:35 am (UTC -5)

Jammer, when you say you like the look of XP, do you mean the Luna theme or the Windows Classic theme? There is only one correct answer.

Friday, October 23, 2009, 11:02 am (UTC -5)

Windows 7 is supposed to be pretty solid. I assume you can use the Windows Classic look in it just like you can in Vista if that is your concern. I too do not like the “upgraded” look of the latest windows versions, though the fact that they renamed “Add/Remove Programs” to something I can never remember, “Program Files”? maybe, in Vista (and I assume it is the same in Windows 7) is still annoying the hell out of me after having Vista for over a year.

Friday, October 23, 2009, 11:08 am (UTC -5)

@MooGoo: The (blue) Luna theme. In fact, I hate that Vista allows you to revert to the Windows Classic theme, but not the Luna theme. The Windows Classic theme is soooo 1995.

Friday, October 23, 2009, 11:19 am (UTC -5)

I’m talking Windows Classic 98, when they added the trendy gradient on the top bar of the window. Best. Theme. Evar.

You can use windows classic on Vista and 7, but in those OS’s it looks like utter crap for some reason.

I would not mind a newer theme if it was designed with the sensibility and minimalist nature of Windows Classic. I’m not sure, but I don’t think I need an extra inch or two of blurry curvy glass around every window.

Dan L
Friday, October 23, 2009, 7:39 pm (UTC -5)

I read this on wikipedia and almost fell out of my chair: “Some Vista Ultimate users have expressed concerns over Windows 7 pricing and upgrade options. Windows Vista Ultimate users wanting to upgrade from Windows Vista to Windows 7 must either pay $219.99 to upgrade to Windows 7 Ultimate or perform a clean install, which requires them to reinstall all of their programs.” Poor souls. As Vista was mass-released in 2006 and Windows 7 did not officially receive the name “Windows 7” until the following year, maybe it’s called 7 because 7 is a lucky number?

Saturday, October 24, 2009, 3:19 am (UTC -5)

It’s called Windows 7 because they want to get back to the classic mode of naming. They want a clean break from the stigma of Vista. I think I read windows 7 is actually based on Windows NT 4.0, rather than directly upgraded from Vista.

Saturday, October 24, 2009, 9:55 pm (UTC -5)

Well, that’s certainly not true. Windows 7 is Vista plus some improvements. The kernel is an updated Vista kernel, the window manager is an updated dwm, the driver model is still the same, privilege escalation is still there, but less obtrusive. In terms of functionality, Vista and 7 are pretty much the same. The big difference is that computers have gotten more powerful, which means you can actually run 7 (or Vista) on these systems without trouble now.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 9:30 am (UTC -5)

Ok, I’ve been remiss in commenting. I was pretty impressed by the NYT Mossberg review of Windows 7. In this day and age, I can’t believe the still charge that much for the upgrade. I mean as cheap as netbooks and laptops are getting, its almost besides the point to pay for the upgrade. Might as well just buy a new system. This holiday season the line between netbooks and laptops is getting even more blurry. Check out this Gateway netbook/laptop that has Windows 7.

Awfully tempting way to check out Windows 7 and not screw around with the gaming rig.

daniel hayden
Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 2:28 pm (UTC -5)

When you’ve got your set-up right its amazing.

Living in the past is just that!

William Matheson
Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 8:42 pm (UTC -5)

Brendan: They are getting back to the classic mode of naming, but they’re also not. Windows 7 is an incremental update of Windows Vista … well, I guess it’s kind of like going from DOS 6 to 6.2 was. And so it is with Windows: Vista was 6.0, and Windows “7” is 6.1. For serious! I know version numbers are arbitrary – I could release a program and call it “version ten million gagillion” but it’s one of those little things that bug me. ๐Ÿ˜‰

For the curious, Windows 95 through ME were 4.xx and XP was 5.xx.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 10:32 pm (UTC -5)

Why the hell isn’t Windows 7 version 7.0? For that matter, even if it is an incremental version of Vista, shouldn’t it at least be version 6.5?

Screw all that. If it took years of development, beta testing and marketing, it’s not “incremental” even if the underlying tech is the same. It should just be version 7.0. Silly.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 10:51 pm (UTC -5)

I agree, Jammer. Having a 7.0 version number would be a lot nicer, but their logic for the 6.1 version makes sense: This way if stupid third-party developers have hard-coded their applications to look for a particular major version number (ie. 6) then they will still function on Windows 7. This was a major issue with the release of Windows 2000 and also XP, because older Windows 98 applications would look to the version number, see 5.x and say “Nope, sorry, can’t run.” So it’s just to preserve application compatibility and minimise conflicts.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 8:47 am (UTC -5)

Interesting. Makes sense.

hermes replica birkin
Saturday, July 20, 2013, 12:26 am (UTC -5)

Your article Jammer’s Blog ยป Review: Microsoft Windows 7 write very well, thank you share! hermes replica birkin

Submit a comment


RSS feed for comments on this post

◄ Blog Home Page