One response to “Windows 7 performance”

1. 

   Sethness March 11th, 2009 at 12:12

   Define “better than” Windows XP?

   As I understand it, Redmond didn’t have time to write a whole new operating system, so Win7 is basically Vista with a better haircut and different nailpolish: cosmetic improvements, but still the same huge, unwieldy, DRM-oriented, fragile behemoth. I’m unconvinced that it could be “better” as in “faster and slimmer” than WinXP.
   

   Win7 is, I think, fully committed to being as elephantine and “evil” as Vista.

   (Read
   http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
   for some excellent reading on why Vista, and hence Win7, are inherently slower, unfriendlier, and more fragile than WinXP)

   I read about Ballmer bullying MS MVPs recently to get positive reviews:

   “Microsoft’s chief executive Steve Ballmer told Most Valuable Professionals (MVPs) attending their company’s conference in Seattle, Washington that if they didn’t move off Windows XP “they’d feel the wrath,” according to attendees Twittering about the event.”
   Read more: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/04/windows_7_enterprise/

   What I’m smelling is hope and hype, with the sweat of desperation.
   MS is basically saying that Win7 *needs* to be a hit (for MS’s accountants to come down from the roof & stop threatening to jump), but I’ve seen no reason to believe that Win7 will *be* anything but the Vista pig in a prettier dress.

   Despite the MS song and dance the scent coming off Win7 still tells me it’s unpalatable.