At first, I wouldn’t want to release this article. But after I see there is so many people who over fancy about Windows 7 and willing to pretend not seeing its disadvantage but continue on bashing Linux, so I have decided to publish this article.
As you all know, Windows 7 is officially released at 22nd October 2009. It is serve as a replacement of Windows Vista. I’m sure a lot people wondering why is Windows 7 release so fast while Vista only on the market officially just for 2 years time? I will explain that later.
Vista was released 30th January 2007. It had been a long waited OS from Microsoft by a lot of people. But everyone was very frustrated with the result as Vista was consuming too much disk space, RAM etc. The minimum requirement that Vista require is too high, until most people not able to catch up. A lot of people was forced to upgrade the PC just to be able to install Vista.
Although 1GB is the minimum requirement, but still, you cannot run it smoothly with just 1GB RAM. 2GB is the most ideal for Vista. This has frustrated a lot of people as Microsoft no longer support XP anymore when Vista is released.
Now Windows 7 Is release. It is actually can be considered as Vista 2nd Edition, just like Windows 98 and Windows 98 SE. From what I see, it is just a bug fix version of Vista. Same like its predecessor, it is also consume a lot of RAM, high disk space consumption, high resources consumption and loaded with lots of unnecessary stuff.
One thing good about Windows 7, is the memory leak problem is partially fixed. But the real problem is still there, not completely removed yet. For this part, Windows XP SP2 is still better compared to Vista and Windows 7. You can sometimes see that the RAM is all used up in Vista and Windows 7 even though you are not running any applications. For this, I consider a bug. An indexer should not take so much RAM although it should be run during the time the PC is idle. But taking up all the RAM is really not logic at all. When you had run some of the applications, and you turned them off, the memory is not totally freed, in fact, the memory is still locked. Especially when you run Microsoft Office 2007.
About Windows 7 Minimum requirement. 1GB minimum for 32 bit version and 2GB minimum for 64 bit version!? How ridiculous it is! I don’t understand why 2GB is the minimum requirement for 64 bit version, it suppose to be the same as 32 bit version, unless they had made lots of mistake on 64 bit version about the memory leak problem. 64 bit version should be able to run more smooth and more fast in processing data with the same amount of RAM compared to 32 bit. But why Windows 7 need to be 2GB minimum? It is also clearly shown that it is a trick of Microsoft to convince people that 64 bit is faster. Undeniable, 64 bit OS is faster than 32 bit OS, but in this case, it does not apply to Windows 7.
When the time Vista is release, it force people to have at least 1GB RAM in order to install it. It is already a big havoc, as most of the commercial use PC is running at 512MB RAM or less. For this reason, these commercial users have no choice but to stay with Windows XP. Although a lot of them are already in 64 bit version, the RAM that they are using is just 512MB as these user’s company wanted to save cost when purchasing computer. Most of the company do like this, so it is not something strange as most of the office use software don’t need more than 512MB RAM.
But amazingly, Microsoft not only ignore the fact that users still not able to accept the changes fro, 512MB era to 1GB yet totally, Microsoft still make their Windows 7 to minimum require 2GB for the 64 bit version. This has clearly shown that Microsoft is more interested in forcing people to buy more new PC from the manufacturer that have a deal with them and them self can earn more by selling the Windows license to these PC manufacturer.
How do they expect people to change from 1GB era to 2GB era in just 2 years time? People is still not totally adapt with the transition from 512MB era to 1GB era yet, but Microsoft already forcing people to jump into 2GB era… For this reason, I had decided to stay on with Ubuntu Linux where it only need minimum 256MB RAM for both Gnome and KDE version. This is also the reason why IBM had signed an agreement with Ubuntu for include Ubuntu Linux in their products soon, not Windows. Windows will be just an optional selection if the customer wanted to purchase the machine with the Windows license.
Windows 7 also take lots of disk space compare to other OS. In Windows XP, it just take less than a GB, while in Vista and Windows 7, it takes nearly 10GB. Some reports said that Windows 7 is taking only 6GB+, I’m not so sure. I only see that it has taken a lot of my disk space!
Ubuntu Linux only takes about 1GB+ after a fresh installation and it has OpenOffice, Firefox, some audio & video player, GIMP(an alternative to Adobe Photoshop) etc. But Windows 7 is just bloated with a lot of unnecessary features and a lot of these features actually take up most of your system resources. The most funny thing is, there is no Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop etc, but it take up so much space!
The installation process of Vista & Widows 7 is already become more simple, more simple than Windows XP, ME & 98. But making it simple have no point, as it does not allow you to customized what you want to install and what you don’t want. The time that consumed to install Windows 7 and Vista is awfully long, although it used up all the speed you have in your CPU and RAM! My laptop was so hot when installing Windows 7 and Vista! When installing Windows XP or Ubuntu Linux, the laptop never become as hot as this! This has show one more thing. Vista and Windows 7 over consumed resources!
About Windows 7 features…. hmm…..
Microsoft claimed that Windows 7 has a lot more features than Windows Vista. How true is it?
I don’t see how much more features. But one feature they added is, the compatibility with software which only able to run better on Windows XP. The XP mode in Windows 7 is a good feature as there is a lot of software are not able to run in Vista. But for the rest such as “Windows Search”, “Pin & Jump Lists”, “Home Group”, “Device Management”, “Libraries”, “View Available Networks”, “Sleep & Resume”, “Power Management”, “Windows Media Center”, “Windows Movie Maker” etc which is listed in their website. Aren’t these features already exist in Windows XP? How can they claim these as new features as they are only enhancement of the existing Windows XP features?
There is a “Tech Savvy” Microsoft Savvy blogger who said it is normal to consume so much disk space as a lot of new features has been added. But hey, with just some improvement like this, consume up to 10GB!? This is only results more bugs and will be harder to debug the OS! The codes is not logic as it needs so long codes just to enhancing so less features.
The “Tech Savvy” Microsoft Savvy blogger said that Windows XP visual effects is awful, while Windows 7’s visual effects is nice. I am actually totally agree with that. But again, I can get those effects and even better ones for free if I use Linux KDE. Why pay for something which is not practical and wasting so much RAM and speed just for the desktop to looks nice while you can save those RAM for use on better thing such as compiler, watching videos, or maybe watching porns? Doing these task with the RAM consuming visual effects is just torturing your machine!
Windows 7 comes with a lot of editions, same like Vista.
You may see the editions chart here.
But 6 different editions is just making the consumer confuse.
When a home user bought a Windows 7 Home Premium. He wanted to use it to run some software that only able to run in Windows XP. As what Microsoft said, Windows 7 have XP Mode. So he expect the software can run, since he bought the most expensive personal use version. But when he install the software, he found that only Professional Edition have that feature. Now how? He contacted Microsoft, and the only solution he will get is “You must buy Professional Edition or above to enable it.” Then he will need to spend more money to buy another copy of Windows 7 with another Windows license to upgrade it. It is so inconvenient and wasting money!
Now, he expect that he able to have more features since it is now a much more expensive version.
He wanted to enable the “Multilingual User Interface” for mandarin interface as his wife don’t understand English much. He is not able to find the option to enable it! He had read in the Microsoft website saying that Windows 7 do have this feature like in Vista did! So he called Microsoft again!
Guess what? He was told by the Microsoft customer service that he need at least an Enterprise Edition in order to use that feature. He asked “Aren’t Professional version is already the business version?”
The the answer he get is, “Yes, but there is still Enterprise Edition, and also Ultimate Edition in the business line versions.”
Some people saying that Microsoft actually helping people to save money by making more edition so that people can buy what they really need, no need to pay more for things that they don’t use. How true is that? There is already a lot of features that are not use by a lot people in the Home Basic Edition.
From what I see, Microsoft actually hope that people will buy the wrong version and then when they need more feature, force them to buy another license for a higher edition. We all know that a lot of Windows users do not actually go to Microsoft website to read which edition have which feature before they buy. In fact, the comparison chart of Windows 7 editions is so hard to find in their website.
There should be only two editions, Home and Professional like in Windows XP to avoid so much confusion.
This article is very long huh?
There is just a little bit more, be patient.
Every time when Microsoft release a new version of their desktop version of Windows, they do release their server version at almost the same time. Here is the example:
Windows 98 <=> Windows NT4 is released (But different platform)
Windows ME <=> Windows 2000 a.k.a NT5 is released (Still different platform)
Windows XP <=> Windows Server 2003 (Same exact kernel with Windows XP)
Windows XP SP1 <=> Windows Server 2003 SP1 (Still same kernel as Windows XP SP1)
Windows XP SP2 <=> Windows Server 2003 SP2 (Still same kernel as Windows XP SP2)
Windows XP SP3 <=> Windows Server 2003 R2 (Still same kernel as Windows XP SP3, But release earlier.)
Windows Vista <=> Windows Server 2008 (Same Kernel with Windows Vista)
Windows Vista SP1 <=> Windows Server 2008 SP1 (Same Kernel with Windows Vista SP1)
Windows Vista SP2 <=> Windows Server 2008 SP2 (Same Kernel with Windows Vista SP2)
Now,
Windows 7 <=> Windows Server 2008 R2 <—???
See what I am trying to say?
Windows 7 is actually Vista SP3 with a new name, features added and a little bit of GUI modification.
Windows desktop versions and the server version is actually the same thing, running on the same kernel.
Just that server versions added some tools which needed for run as server such as DFS, IIS, etc.
By the way, XP Pro do have IIS too.
I had cracked the Windows kernel and view some part of it before. Although I am not able to view the codes, but I found something very interesting. Desktop version’s of boot screen is in the Server version kernel, as well as Server version boot screen is inside the Desktop version kernel. I did this since Windows XP/2003 time as hobby.
While for the performance wise, why the server version is more smooth since it is the same thing? The answer is very simple. The Windows registry setting is different. With just some editing in Windows XP’s registry, you will see the Windows Server 2003 boot screen when you are starting your Windows.
This still continue until Windows versions nowadays…..
Sad but true.
You bough a Windows Server? Yeah, what you thinking is correct, you had buy a tweaked desktop OS for your server.
You though Windows 7 is something totally new? Yeah, you had actually just bough a Service Pack of Vista only.
So, this is the reason why it is not worth to spend so much money to upgrade to Windows 7 if you had already have Vista. You already spend so much, no need to spend more for things you don’t need.
These is the main reason why I still not switch back to Windows yet.
These is the reason why I still continue to use Ubuntu Linux and encourage to who not willing to change to Ubuntu Linux to stay with Windows XP.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_a.png?w=895)