Redmond, We Don't Believe You
Monday, 14 September 2009 21:32![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
10-22-2009: The End Of The World Is Coming
Microsoft is getting ready to release Windows 7 to the world. Windows 7? Really? Actually, I know it's Windows NT4, NT5 (2000), NT5.1 (XP), NT5.1 (6) (Vista)... so obviously WIndows 7 comes after NT, 2000, XP and Vista. What?
But the marketing campaign... shakes head. The latest commercial with some six-year-old "on Daddy's laptop" cutting and pasting preliminary Windows 7 reviews into shots of marshmallows, bunnies and hamsters with skimmer hats. Right... I am surely going to believe someone who cannot read the big words properly. I'd rather have, what did they do? Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Gates stealing a stuffed giraffe to sell Vista? Geesh.
We've Been Through This Before
It's actually possible to fix Windows. XP Pro SP2/SP3 is pretty stable, for example, and its library of printer drivers is a helluva lot more successful than the Vista driver situation. Not that we'd ever want to actually ever print any of the work on OUR computers. Using hardware we actually ALREADY OWN.
But seriously.
WIndows 1.04 shipped with some IBM PS/2 systems -- and was worthless and useless.
There was Windows 286 versus Windows 386... and then Windows 3.0, which really didn't work right and had early Word and Excel for Windows which didn't work right. Windows 3.1 and 3.11 -- they actually performed good enough that Windows actually began showing up on machines.
Windows 95 made a better interface and allowed easier windowing and task switching. Of course it was supposed to work with USB, and Windows 95B OSR2 had USB drivers -- which didn't work with most USB devices without crashing or ignoring the USB hardware.
Windows 98 fixed the USB problems and... oh crap, Win98 had enough problems they had to come out with Windows 98 Second Edition. Which actually works. Then they upgraded it to Windows Me Millennium Edition and the shit really hit the fan. Not a good upgrade, though some computers equipped with Win98ME work okay -- hell, I have a Sony laptop with Win98ME I still use, go figure.
Meanwhile, in the NT parallel universe, NT 3.51 was functional, but NT 4.0 Professional was much better. Service Pack 6a was good enough that SP7 was cancelled.
Windows NT 5 became Windows 2000 Professional and shipped with thousands of bugs. But it's up to what, SP4? SP5? And some IT departments still use it because they've made it stable.
And XP. Once we got to Windows XP SP2, it was worth using. Even Win XP Home SP3 on netbooks seems to work. The same, I fear, cannot be said for all users of Windows Vista, which has so many damned versions no one can quite keep them all straight.
Bottom Line
So you want us to think that Windows 7 is the greatest thing since sliced bread, because you say so?
I don't think so.
Call me in 2012 when you've got Win 7 SP2/SP3 going. Meanwhile, stop with this nonsense of planning to kill Windows XP too soon. Really.
Dr. Phil
Microsoft is getting ready to release Windows 7 to the world. Windows 7? Really? Actually, I know it's Windows NT4, NT5 (2000), NT5.1 (XP), NT5.1 (6) (Vista)... so obviously WIndows 7 comes after NT, 2000, XP and Vista. What?
But the marketing campaign... shakes head. The latest commercial with some six-year-old "on Daddy's laptop" cutting and pasting preliminary Windows 7 reviews into shots of marshmallows, bunnies and hamsters with skimmer hats. Right... I am surely going to believe someone who cannot read the big words properly. I'd rather have, what did they do? Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Gates stealing a stuffed giraffe to sell Vista? Geesh.
We've Been Through This Before
It's actually possible to fix Windows. XP Pro SP2/SP3 is pretty stable, for example, and its library of printer drivers is a helluva lot more successful than the Vista driver situation. Not that we'd ever want to actually ever print any of the work on OUR computers. Using hardware we actually ALREADY OWN.
But seriously.
WIndows 1.04 shipped with some IBM PS/2 systems -- and was worthless and useless.
There was Windows 286 versus Windows 386... and then Windows 3.0, which really didn't work right and had early Word and Excel for Windows which didn't work right. Windows 3.1 and 3.11 -- they actually performed good enough that Windows actually began showing up on machines.
Windows 95 made a better interface and allowed easier windowing and task switching. Of course it was supposed to work with USB, and Windows 95B OSR2 had USB drivers -- which didn't work with most USB devices without crashing or ignoring the USB hardware.
Windows 98 fixed the USB problems and... oh crap, Win98 had enough problems they had to come out with Windows 98 Second Edition. Which actually works. Then they upgraded it to Windows Me Millennium Edition and the shit really hit the fan. Not a good upgrade, though some computers equipped with Win98ME work okay -- hell, I have a Sony laptop with Win98ME I still use, go figure.
Meanwhile, in the NT parallel universe, NT 3.51 was functional, but NT 4.0 Professional was much better. Service Pack 6a was good enough that SP7 was cancelled.
Windows NT 5 became Windows 2000 Professional and shipped with thousands of bugs. But it's up to what, SP4? SP5? And some IT departments still use it because they've made it stable.
And XP. Once we got to Windows XP SP2, it was worth using. Even Win XP Home SP3 on netbooks seems to work. The same, I fear, cannot be said for all users of Windows Vista, which has so many damned versions no one can quite keep them all straight.
Bottom Line
So you want us to think that Windows 7 is the greatest thing since sliced bread, because you say so?
I don't think so.
Call me in 2012 when you've got Win 7 SP2/SP3 going. Meanwhile, stop with this nonsense of planning to kill Windows XP too soon. Really.
Dr. Phil
no subject
Date: Tuesday, 15 September 2009 03:59 (UTC)Had that little devil for quite a while, even after I won a Toshiba laptop with Windows 98/2E at a trade show. Still have that one and use it frequently, although it is too slow to use even on a slow dial-up connection.
Went to work after graduation for a company using 2 legacy IBM System 36 mini-mainframes and IBM 386 boxes as system emulators.
Ah, the good times.
no subject
Date: Tuesday, 15 September 2009 04:30 (UTC)Why would I remember that? (grin) Oh, I'm a geek -- never mind.
Dr. Phil
no subject
Date: Tuesday, 15 September 2009 04:39 (UTC)no subject
Date: Tuesday, 15 September 2009 05:01 (UTC)You can tell it's probably a 55 SX because of the white power switch, as opposed to the red power switch of the Model 50. All the faster processor PS/2 versions of a particular case got white switches.
Dr. Phil
no subject
Date: Tuesday, 15 September 2009 10:49 (UTC)Here's hoping my work IT guy doesn't jump on Win 7 just in case it's worse than vista (though one would shutter to think.)
no subject
Date: Tuesday, 15 September 2009 17:29 (UTC)Lots of IT managers have still not adopted Vista. And I am not about to believe MS via a 6 year old with The Final Countdown as the music background that Windows 7 is Da Game. No. It isn't.
Dr. Phil
no subject
Date: Tuesday, 15 September 2009 13:04 (UTC)As I remember, brand new USB drive (generic). Thirty minutes with Vista working through the "But you don't have a driver for this, would you like me to download." Took it to our tech guy along with my Mac laptop. Worked instantly with the Mac. This WTF?! Moment brought to you by the good people at Microsoft.
no subject
Date: Tuesday, 15 September 2009 17:33 (UTC)Geebus, guys, don't you remember that I buy computers TO GET WORK DONE? Not to boot the thing and admire the default wallpaper.
7 is, as far as I can tell, just Vista Prime. Forget it.
Dr. Phil
no subject
Date: Wednesday, 16 September 2009 06:48 (UTC)Windows 95 was a cheap knockoff of MacOS. Also, every version of Windows that came out after it would move the command prompt to a different location and give it a different name; it was really annoying. :p
My ex-work stuck with XP, which was fine by me, as I hadn't even wanted to upgrade from 2k. They had a demo computer with 7 on it at the time I was leaving. I never got around to looking.
no subject
Date: Wednesday, 16 September 2009 20:30 (UTC)Though there are sometimes multiple ways to get at it, the MS-DOS box for command line interface pretty much shows up as MS-DOS in Win 9x systems and CMD.EXE in Win NT systems, which includes 2000, XP and Vista. Haven't looked at 7 yet, but it is also NT class.
I am the King of DOS Batch Files and use the command line interface for most of my daily manipulations and file backups. I do have to test sometimes whether or not I'm on an NT class machine, because the DOS commands do differ. I believe that the guy who designed NT is the same one who wrote DEC VMS, which explains an awful lot about How We Do Things. (grin)
Dr. Phil