Since Windows 7 has been out for a while now, it’s time for some real-world benchmarks to start rolling in. I haven’t seen too many yet, but a first look appears to place Win 7 slightly above XP in some tests…but slightly below it in others. And in a totally unsurprising non-revelation, Vista didn’t win a single test.

This said, the tests that PC Magazine ran weren’t exactly exhaustive. They tested things like comparative start-up and shutdown times, video encoding, and also ran a few basic benchmarking tools. And while Win 7 won 3 tests, it only won the “shutdown time” and SunSpider comparisons by a large margin. Otherwise, the results aren’t all that different from XP. I’m sorry, but shutdown time is probably so irrelevant as to be useless as a test. I doubt most users care how long this process takes, since they’re likely to tell the machine to shut itself down and walk away for the night.

This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t upgrade to Windows 7 from XP. Upgrading might be the only way to make use of some newer hardware or applications (though the latter is probably debatable). This will become more evident over time, as Microsoft loses interest in XP and starts putting it lower on the patch/upgrade food chain. Eventually it’ll be put out to pasture, and you’ll be stuck upgrading to some newer Windows release.

If you have Vista however, the choice is somewhat clearer. Vista has low acceptance, is filled with annoyances and flaws, and didn’t win any of the tests (at best it was somewhere in the middle). Windows 7 is at least better than Vista, even if it doesn’t truly beat XP.

If you do decide to upgrade, remember that both Vista and Win 7 require more memory (1GB vs 256MB), CPU, and disk space than XP. Thus, your current machine may be a total dog after you upgrade. If your system is more than 3-4 years old, you might want to seriously consider a new machine. Prices are currently low, and you can make the migration from your older OS to Windows 7 in stages if necessary. If you try to upgrade XP to Windows 7 (which may not be possible at all) you may end up with an unusable system.

Don’t forget to take a backup if you try an upgrade, whether from XP to Vista or Vista to Windows 7.

Over the last few years, “slim” has been “in.” Laptops, following in the steps of products like the Macbook Air, have tried to become as light and thin as possible. Netbooks, those $300 little jobbies everyone seems to want to own, are also driving this trend. One of the ways it is being accomplished is by removing components some people find indispensable, and others just don’t use: the CD/DVD drive, or “optical” unit. You can trim a lot of weight, and thickness, from a laptop just by removing those components.

PCs have had optical drives of some type installed since the last floppies went out of vogue. In the late 1990s. Manufacturers ramped up to optical storage since software vendors were shipping whole product sets on CD, and later on DVD, as “all on one disK” distributions. No more stacks of 50 Microsoft Office floppies…just one CD. Later it became “just one DVD” as software outpaced 600MB CD capacity, but the component sizes were the same and compatible with one another. Now, however, these are vanishing from cases and leaving us with few easy options when we want to watch a DVD or (heaven help me) install software from CD.

One of the biggest lessons from the craze for “netbooks” — inexpensive little laptops designed mainly for browsing the Web — is “that people were so excited about the small, easy-to-carry size that they didn’t miss having a CD or DVD drive. USB is an obvious choice. With a single port, the user can connect a single CD or DVD drive to their laptop at will, thus re-establishing the balance between input & output device.”

But let’s say you’re seriously into watching DVDs or listening to CDs. The obvious solution is that you should keep your existing unit. Folks like you “might want to think twice if you’re hooked on transferring CDs into MP3s — or if you spend a lot of time watching DVDs on airplanes and don’t want to squint at your iPod.” I’ll admit guilt to the latter, having watched whole movies on flights from Boston to London. But I carry my laptop for both business and writing, and am used to having it strapped across my back on a regular basis.

Maybe on future models the paradigm will involve a big memory stick sized to fit a whole movie. That would be the death knell for the laptop-based optical drive. And it’ll happen, too.

It was only a matter of time, with Windows 7 now on the shelves and available for sale. Already the complaints have started piling up, but this time fewer seem related to the OS itself than to the upgrade process. Apparently some users either can’t be bothered to read the fine print when buying software, or certain retailers aren’t providing a clear enough description of a product on their websites.

The hullabaloo I’m referring to is a report that “a number of” users have bought the wrong upgrade from either Microsoft or Digital River, and experienced installation failures as a result. The users in question were running 32-bit Windows Vista (whether on 32- or 64-bit hardware isn’t mentioned) and tried running the 64-bit Windows 7 upgrade. This doesn’t work, as Microsoft clearly documents. You can upgrade a 32-bit installation of Vista to 32-bit Windows 7, but you can’t “cross the streams” and use a 64-bit upgrade copy.

Of course, the users are blaming Microsoft. Redmond responded by telling the affected users to get a refund from Digital River and repurchase a 32-bit upgrade copy instead. Whether DR will allow them to do this (its site says it won’t accept refunds on software) is unknown at this time.

On the other hand, XP or 2000 users who waited out the Vista morass are being punished by being required to run a “custom” (AKA “clean”) upgrade in order to get to Windows 7. This means you have to back up everything on your machine, boot the Windows 7 Upgrade process, and let it install a brand new copy of itself…no in-place upgrade from XP is possible.

“If you want to move from Windows Vista 32-bit to Windows 7 64-bit, or if you are running Windows XP [emphasis mine], you have to do a “Custom” or clean installation that must be started by booting off the Windows 7 64-bit DVD,” Michael stressed.” That’s going to anger lots of users, myself included. I suspect my next “upgrade” will be to Linux of some variety, rather than to another version of Windows.

It’s now only a matter of hours before Windows 7 officially hits the market. I bet the folks in Redmond are busily planning their “release parties” (the biggest joke of the season thus far) and hoping to get some downtime after the product ships. But how did we get to “7″ in the first place? Given the strange and sordid genealogy of Windows, a quick rundown and history lesson seems in order.

Originally, Windows wasn’t even an OS. Instead it was just an add-on to DOS (remember that?). You installed DOS 5 or 6, then put Windows on top of it. You booted to a DOS prompt, then started Windows when you wanted it. In those days, Windows 1 (which no one used), 2, and 3 were the available versions. But in around 1994, things started getting complicated.

First, Windows NT 3 (”New Technology” showed up. It was a totally new, 32-bit OS and few applications were available for it. It did not boot a DOS kernel, and DOS was only available in a console window. It was designed for the professional/technical market. At roughly the same time, Windows 95 came out. It was the first “user level” version to boot directly to the Windows logo…but it was still DOS under the covers.

Later, we got Windows 98 and NT 4.0. 98 started the process of removing the underlying DOS kernel, but it was still there in all its 16-bit glory. NT 4.0 was actually a pretty good OS, and more applications became available for it (mostly from Microsoft). Then there was the much-maligned Windows ME (”Millennium Edition”) at the user level, circa 1999. Few remember it, and they’re still in therapy.

With Windows 2000, NT and the ‘9x’ versions started converging. DOS was basically gone by this time, and 2000 was a very good, stable platform that integrated the 32-bit NT kernel with some nice user-level improvements. But then Microsoft started selling “home,” “professional,” and “server” editions. The whole morass of “which release do I want?” started getting worse. For myself, I’ve only ever used Professional editions and generally despise anything that says “Home” on the label.

Vista got its name, allegedly, because some clever idiot in marketing decided you could “see a vista through a window” (or something like that). Well, we all know how that ended.

Now we have Windows 7, which indicates Redmond is going back to the traditional 1, 2, 3 naming path. ‘95/’98 were “4,” 2000 was “5,”, XP/Vista were “6.” Or so I’ve read, anyway. Now we get to see whether it sells. And I’ll bet some people in Redmond are partying down while burying copies of Vista in a cemetery at midnight. Probably with stakes driven through the CD and installer guides.

So far, advance copies of Windows 7 are getting good review in several areas. One of those is networking, which many users still consider a black art requiring the sacrifice of chickens under a full moon (I think you have to strangle them with a network cable). Earlier versions of Windows, all the way back to 3.1 in fact, included basic “Microsoft networking” peer-to-peer relationship capabilities, but many users found it difficult and frequently unstable.

I’ve used non-domain “workgroup” networking for years, and generally it works okay. But I’ve seen situations where failures are totally incomprehensible and can only be resolved (maybe) by starting again from scratch. This is not the way to win hearts and minds, however. And Microsoft has apparently seen the light in this respect with Windows 7.

The new concept is called the “HomeGroup,” and it’s an easy (too yet to be sure) method that should allow families to share all their local machines with very little pain involved. To form a group, one person sets up the HomeGroup and generates a password to allow access to it. This password is then passed to all other users in the home. Once it’s entered, the theory is that all machines are now connected and capable of sharing resources (disks, folders, printers, etc.) with no more tuning required.

The two drawbacks identified so far are: a) “Windows 7 Starter and Windows 7 Home Basic versions cannot create a HomeGroup, but computers running any version of Windows 7 can join a HomeGroup.” So you need at least one Pro/Advanced copy in order to set up a HomeGroup in the first place. That’s a bit annoying, and it probably means these versions have special capabilities (they’re more business oriented, after all) required to support the group. The other, b) is that only Windows 7 boxes will work in a HomeGroup. No others (not even Vista!) need apply, since there’s no support in the OS for this functionality. Maybe that’ll happen later, but it’s not there yet.
a
So, this is apparently an improvement over prior releases. Home users should be a bit happier in the post Windows Networking era, and hopefully their tech-savvy relatives or friends will get fewer calls asking for network assistance. I’m okay with that idea.a

Advance copies of what (one would expect) are the final release copy of Windows 7 have been available to certain parties, such as trade magazines and developers, for some time now. As a result, we’re starting to see the first reviews of the actual product, as opposed to the not-ready-for-prime-time “release candidate” versions that were under test earlier in the year. So far, the new Windows seems like it’s a big step up from Vista…but that’s not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Naturally, we really won’t know how the new release behaves until it actually hits the street. No matter how much testing is done by reviewers and other early adopters prior to the magic release date, bugs will certainly be uncovered. Some people will love it. Others are guaranteed to hate it. The big question, of course, is “should I upgrade?”

According to at least one review, the answer is probably a resounding “no.” If you’re happy with Vista, or with XP, you’re probably better off staying with your existing OS. The upgrade to 7 will cost $120, and it may just not be worthwhile. Now, it’s a different story if you’re buying a new PC. Then you’ll probably want Windows 7 over much-maligned Vista, and it’s generally a good idea to buy the latest OS with a new machine anyway.

Early indications suggest that XP users won’t have fun upgrading their existing OS, since 7’s installer will effectively trash their existing system. Apparently “users will have to reinstall all their programs and find their files in the folder where Windows 7 tucks them away,” both of which are really stupid side-effects that have me scratching my head. Were I an XP user (which I am) intending to migrate to 7 (which I am not), I’d buy a new machine with 7 pre-installed and migrate my files/applications by hand.

Some new features sound pretty good, like the improved task bar and “library” concept that allows users to organize files based on function (e.g. photos or music) rather than by folder. But unless you truly hate Vista and know your machine can handle Windows 7, you’re probably better off where you are now. Windows 7 will be there come the next round of hardware upgrades, so you’ll have plenty of opportunity to take it out for a spin.

I’m not sure when the ad campaign actually started, but Windows 7 is already in the news. Tonight on TV I saw two long (1 minute) ads showing a small child cutting & pasting text from various pre-release reviews of the new OS. Each review snippet was filled with typical, self-congratulatory corporate “best of all time” and “better than ever” jargon.

Somewhat bizarrely, the small child was pasting the snippets into thought balloons leading to cartoon characters and animals in comic settings. The obvious message is that the new OS is so easy a child can use it. But I think there are unintentionally funny aspects to this campaign as well. Years ago, one of my UNIX-mad colleagues referred to Macs and PCs as “toy computers.” Maybe he was more correct than anyone thought at that time (except UNIX aficionados), since these systems have indeed become so user-oriented that they’re usable by anyone above the age of 3.

As veteran tech watcher Robert Cringley has observed, the Microsoft hype machine has (yet again) moved into overdrive. Vista hurt Redmond badly, and they need a comeback release to re-establish Windows’ street cred with users who hated the last few releases. As far as I’m concerned, XP was the last gasp of a real OS. Today, Windows is little more than it was ten years ago…unless you count the number of bells, whistles, and cutesy applications that have been layered atop its basic functionality.

As Cringe observed, Steve Ballmer really means it when he says 7 is the best Windows release ever. “He also really meant it when he said the same things about Vista, XP, NT, Windows 98, Win 95, and every other Windows OS going back to DOS 2.1, with the possible exception of Windows ME.”

So watch those commercials and ads, laugh at the ludicrous idea of “Windows 7 Launch Parties” (one of the most idiotic ideas ever), and wait. Let the OS hit the market. Watch the early adopters, tech boards, and other sources of independent information. Then, if it sounds like a useful upgrade, grab a copy. Until then, your old release probably works just as well. And it’s paid for.

A significant level of buzz has been noted recently over the release of a Microsoft-sponsored (of course) video promoting the upcoming release of Windows 7. The video, created by a company called HouseParty, shows a group of four adults of various ages gushing over their upcoming — you guessed it — “House Party” celebrating the release of the new OS.

I watched the video. I thought I was going to be ill.

Corporations frequently come up with nonsensical advertising campaigns. This is a given. In some cases these campaigns catch on simply because they’re so stupid that everyone loves watching them. This is a classic example of the genre. The four actors ham their way through six solid minutes of obviously forced chattiness about…an operating system. They giggle on about “activities” they’re going to conduct at their fake “House Party” — showing friends the new features of the OS, letting them play with some of its toys, and so forth. The chummy, fake enthusiasm is classic corporate-video-gone-wrong fare (believe me, I’ve seen many that were far worse). The smiles are as fake as any you’d see on a politician’s mug during a campaign stop. The demographics are obvious as well, with two men and two women of varying ages and backgrounds.

The big question is whether the release of this video, which Redmond approved but clearly did not produce on its own, will hurt or help Microsoft’s release efforts. Apparently it’s already been parodied at least once, with references to “Windows 7″ bleeped out in favor of some decidedly non-PC (in all senses of the word) overdubbing. But as they apparently say in the advertising business, it doesn’t matter if the ad is stupid as long as people watch it. And they’re definitely watching this one — at latest count it’s been viewed over 800,000 times on YouTube.

Will you have a “Windows 7 House Party” on October 22nd? I may have one, replete with bug lists and printed screen shots of BSoDs hanging around as decorations instead of balloons. That sounds like a lot more fun.

Software upgrades often carry a cost in terms of hardware requirements. We all know that machines capable of running, for example, Windows 2000 or even 98 would bog down over XP or (gulp!) Vista. Feature additions require more CPU, memory, or disk space. Newer games often require high end video cards. Staying “appropriately ahead” (a new term…you saw it here first) of hardware requirements is a constant battle in the IT marketplace.

When someone asks my advice before buying a new machine, I tell them to buy ahead of the curve if possible. If the current Windows or MacOS version requires 1GB, buy 2GB. If you think you need 250GB of disk space, try to buy twice that. This is also known as “future-proofing” your purchase. It helps, but doesn’t guarantee, you’ll be able to use that machine successfully for more than a few years.

Now for the good news: it appears Windows 7 will be able to run on most desktop machines sold since roughly 2006…presuming they’re not low-end boxes with minimal RAM and processors faster than 1GHZ. Initial tests show that machines with a processor over this speed, plus at least 1GB of RAM and a paltry 16GB of disk can run the soon-to-be-released new Windows version. That should make people pretty happy.

The other good news is that, even if you have a machine with only 512MB (and there are few of those around, I suspect) you should be able to upgrade your existing system for short money. I just put 2GB of RAM into a 1-year old laptop….for $40. That’s pocket change.

This said, “able to run” doesn’t mean it’ll necessarily be a pleasant experience. A lot depends on the software you’re using on top of the OS. If you use only email and a browser, you’ll probably be perfectly happy with your system’s performance. But if you habitually use lots of memory-intensive applications, or run tasks that tax the CPU, you might need to upgrade. Or get used to waiting.

After lots of speculation, Microsoft finally put a hard date on the RTM (release to manufacturing) date for Window 7: it’ll hit general availability on Oct 22, 2009. Developers will be able to get near-final copies in July. There’s a good reason for the latter, too. The new release has to be tested against hundreds of existing applications to determine supportability and whether any changes are needed to current code bases.

Plus, anyone who’s developing a new application or release needs the newest OS code so they can develop against it. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that lots of developers already have beta and RC (release candidate) versions of 7 installed, but that’s often not the same as having the real thing. I had to test applications against then-unreleased XP back in 2001, and the final OS was very different from the RC I was able to work with.

Now, the next question is “what happens next?” Will XP holdouts decide to jump over Vista, directly to Windows 7? They’ll have to pay to do so, while Redmond has announced a free upgrade path for existing Vista users, but “said the upgrade to Windows 7 would be free and available only to those who purchase Vista Home Premium, Vista Business and Vita Ultimate.”

I suppose this is a way of punishing XP users who didn’t pony up for Vista, and it’s also a way to sell more machines between now and October. If the free upgrade wasn’t available, lots of users would just wait until they could buy Windows 7 pre-installed on a new machine.

As noted before, research group Gartner “predicts that more than half of the corporate Windows user-base will skip Vista and go to Windows 7.” This isn’t surprising either. There’s no point testing and rolling out a Vista user image for thousands of users when a new OS is on the horizon. If you’re in that situation, you leapfrog the old release and go for the latest and (greatest?). That way you don’t have to go through the same scenario all over again a year later.

Will Windows 7 be a hit, or a farce like Vista? Reviews are cautiously optimistic so far, despite some apparently very annoying compatibility issues and some grumbling over some of 7’s new features. If this version doesn’t sell, Microsoft is in trouble. I think they know that, so hopefully this one’s been done right. We’ll find out in less than six months.