Many unfortunately remember the infamous "Vista Capable" logo disaster. A whole bunch of new computers at the time Windows Vista was launched had a little logo that was supposed to indicate yes, they were capable of running Vista. But as we all found out, many of those new computers were barely "capable." Instead computer owners were treated to a less-than-pleasant computing experience – putting it very nicely.

One of the best things Microsoft ever did was release Windows 7 RC to the general public for testing. A ton of people, including myself, use this OS. I use it as my primary right now. This allowed everybody on both sides (corporate and consumer) to do the best live field testing of Windows since the product came into existence; this has served everybody very well.

Microsoft will be using a logo program again for Windows 7, so you will see those little stickers on new computers if you haven’t already. This time around the requirements to get the sticker are far more stringent compared to the Vista logo debacle.

The logo means the product must work with both 32 and 64-bit editions. This is particularly important for peripheral devices, because it means the driver disc included will have 32 and 64-bit versions included. It also means more rigorous testing has been performed to ensure that yes, it will work.

Part of this program includes "Ready. Set. 7." You can check out right now what developers are building 7-compatible items at www.readyset7.com. The list is extensive, and that’s great because it means that many of the products on store shelves will be compatible right out of the box.

In the end however, what has mattered most concerning 7’s readiness has been end-user testing from Win 7 RC use. I use 7 RC, and this OS proved its worth beyond any doubt by running nearly flawlessly on my Dell Inspiron Mini 10v netbook, which houses only a single core 1.6GHz Intel Atom CPU, 1GB of RAM, shared video memory and a 160GB 5400rpm HDD.

As far as I’m concerned, if Win 7 can run on this smoothly (which it does,) it can run on just about any computer made in the last 5 years without the need to upgrade.

The logo program is good and is being far better managed, granted, but it’s been the users of this OS that have had the most influence on people. If I thought Win 7 sucked, I would say so without hesitation. If other people thought it sucked, they would say so as well. We’ve all been nothing but honest in our reviews of this OS. And it’s the general consensus that Win 7 doesn’t suck. Not in the slightest. In fact, we all really like it. That’s why we dare to run an RC as our primary operating system. Ordinarily that’s considered computer suicide, but the blunt honest truth is that 7 really is that good.

This is not a review of Windows 7 the operating system, but rather www.windows7sins.org. I suggest reading thru that web site before reading this article. Some will agree with every point made on that site while others will say, "Um.. I don’t think so."

Here’s my two cents on each "sin".

1. Poisoning education

I disagree solely for the reason that Apple computers, which all run OS X, have a large presence in schools, colleges and universities.

You could argue that Apple equally "poisons" children just as bad as Microsoft does.

2. Invading privacy

I agree. I’ve never been comfortable with the fact you have to "activate" Windows and "validate" software just to use it.

3. Monopoly behavior.

I disagree. Large PC manufacturers, Dell included, have sincerely tried to get people to use alternative operating systems like Ubuntu. When netbooks (the hottest selling computer at the moment) first appeared, most of them came preinstalled with Linux. What happened? Returns aplenty. What happened when they started getting shipped with XP? Sales went thru the roof and continue to do so. That’s not monopolistic behavior on Microsoft’s part, that’s the market demanding what they want. It is painfully obvious just from return figures alone that people wanted Windows.

4. Lock-in

I agree and disagree.

Disagree: Windows 7 requires far less hardware requirements than Vista did. On YouTube there are even videos of people running 7 on Pentium III PCs. I’m not kidding. Doesn’t look like lock-in to me. On my own netbook, which is a 1.6GHz with only 1GB RAM, Windows 7 runs flawlessly. I’m using it right now to type this article on.

Agree: Windows does force updates if you have auto-update turned on, and it is aggravating when you leave the computer on overnight only to find it rebooted itself automatically from certain updates that came down the pike. Not cool.

5. Abusing standards

Agree. Microsoft does try consistently to make Word’s DOC the only format anybody would use. It is well known that the OpenDocument format is better, safer, easier and runs on any OS. Microsoft really needs to get with the times here and understand that proprietary software formats are a dumb idea. That time has long passed yet Microsoft clings to it viciously.

6. Enforcing Digital Restrictions Management (DRM).

Disagree. Microsoft would have happily left the Windows Media Player DRM-free but were essentially forced to do it by Big Media due to preexisting relationships. You will notice Microsoft didn’t lift a finger to enforce DRM until Big Media, such as NBC, specifically asked them to do it. Some would say, "Microsoft should have refused!" Should they have? And shoot themselves in the foot? I think it’s obvious why they agreed with NBC in the first place.

7. Threatening user security.

Agree – but to a point.

Nobody knew in the mid-1990s that the internet was going to take the world by storm. Then came in the tsunami of new computer users and it caught Microsoft completely off guard.

Why did Windows have the security of a wet napkin for so long? Mainly because prior to internet, Windows didn’t need any as a not-connected-to-internet PC.

Even in 2001 when XP was released, the internet was still an unsure bet back then.

Where I agree is that Windows had more holes than Swiss cheese for far too long. The stretch between XP and Vista/7 was far too long. The stretch between IE 6 and 7/8 was far too long. Only now, finally, in 7 do we have a Windows OS that is at least on par with other major offerings.

I know there will be those that vehemently disagree with me on this point, and if that’s the case, so be it. Win 7 is the most secure Windows to date. In some instances it’s even safer than a Mac. But the jury is still out on that one because we’ll see what really happens when Win 7 is officially released in October ‘09 and how it stacks up to Apple’s latest Snow Leopard.

The true threat as far as I’m concerned comes from OS activation and WGA. I see that as an invasion of privacy as noted in point 2 above. I find it absolutely disgusting that Windows requires "activation" just to work after a set number of days. It is absolutely wrong that the OS takes inventory of what you have installed and sends it to other places (Microsoft) thru this validation process.

Windows may even come to a point where it’s required for it to be connected to the internet just to work. At present that’s not necessary. If you have to, you can still mail in a registration card (which is almost just as bad). But if it happens that all future Windows OSes are "internet required just to work".. I don’t even want to think about it.

What do you think?

Is Windows7Sins.org correct with all points? Some? None? Voice your opinion.

The fact Microsoft is offering Windows 7 free for an entire year to anybody who wants it is definitely a change for the better. It used to be that whenever any software maker released a product, they would do so, wait for the mountain of complaints to come in, then provide fixes. Concerning operating systems, that’s typically how commercial releases worked for many years.

It is impossible to release an OS that is bug-free. But with Windows 7 I can honestly say that when official, this will probably be the least bug-laden version of the OS ever put to market. And a huge reason for that is because people like myself and many others who are running Windows 7 RC are providing valuable information to Microsoft by using the OS, talking about it, describing what works, what doesn’t and so on.

Linux users have been doing this for years, so the idea of letting the users give feedback before official release is nothing new. It is the strength of the Linux community that contributes largely to a Linux distribution’s rock-solid reliability. When there’s a problem even to the slightest degree, it’s reported, discussed openly (keyword there) and addressed.

Finally, after all this time, Microsoft is now following suit and taking advantage of the power of the internet community. This is a very large step in the right direction because it gives the home user a much louder voice than before.

The voice of the consumer was largely overshadowed by corporations up until this point. Why? Because corporations spend the most money on Microsoft products. Am I saying that the consumer is now on an even playing field with corporate? No. But we are being listened to more, and that’s better than nothing.

Microsoft will never be at the level of user empowerment that Linux is. Of that I have no doubt. Linux, being largely non-commercial, has the advantage of having the user as its loudest voice first and always. When you’re commercial, the user is shunted to dead last as far as "this is who we listen to concerning issues", and I don’t deny that.

However, in all my years of using Windows this is the first time I’ve really seen Microsoft actually pay very close attention to its consumer base and make it well known that it is.

As said above, this is a huge step in the right direction because it makes for a much better end product.

As you may or may not have heard, the next Windows will be literally called Windows 7.

This has confused some people because the total number of Microsoft Windows releases has been way more than 7 – but I digress.

Windows XP is version 5.1.2600.

How do I know this?

…that’s how.

Windows XP was the NT kernel release after Windows 2000 (version 5.0.2195), so if you want to get really technical about it, XP is Windows 5.1.

Windows Vista is NT kernel version 6.0.6001 or just 6.0 for short.

Windows 7 has been reported that it will be using the same kernel as Vista, but will be version 6.1 and not 7.0.

So… Windows 7 has a very distinct chance of having an NT kernel that isn’t representative of the OS retail title.

Maybe Microsoft just likes odd numbers or something.

Windows NT 3.1 did have kernel 3.1. WinNT 3.5 had kernel 3.5, WinNT 3.51 had kernel 3.51 and WinNT 4.0 had kernel 4.0.

All those titles followed what was "under the hood", so to speak.

Windows 7 at present doesn’t.

Um, yeah. A bit odd to say the least.