Initial reaction to an early report that Microsoft's Windows 7 might share similar performance and compatibility issues with Windows Vista was mixed and heated.  Some lamented the inability of running Vista adequately on netbooks or older work computers, while others pointed to the OS's track record. 

Due to the strong response, it certainly seems worthwhile to dig into this topic and offer some second thoughts, as well as get some second opinions, to ascertain if InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy was off base, or possibly onto something when he called Windows 7 a "virtual twin of Vista when it comes to performance."

First, let's examine two other early reviews of the pre-Beta of the OS.  These reviews come from the blogging staff of PC World and PC Pro, two publications which typically use and appreciate Windows, despite giving it criticism where criticism is due (though both also feature numerous columns from primary Mac and Linux users).

First of all, PC Pro echoes InfoWorld's sentiments to some extent, stating, "And the net effect? Surprisingly little. At this stage of development, over a year from release, Windows 7 looks almost identical to Vista."

However, the publications points out that many of the upgrades to the OS touted at the PDC and WinHEC -- such as the improved task bar and the improved SSD support -- were not yet supported.  Thus it is very reasonable to believe that some at least minor performance improvements may be in store as well.

They also offer up an interesting observation, which at first seems to be a contradiction.  They state, "Yet Windows 7 does already offer one compelling advantage over Vista: it’s fast. Both our senior pontificators were struck by how nimble Windows 7 feels after you’re used to its predecessor. As Tim Danton writes, 'Vista was never this nippy. You press on an icon and it leaps into action. . . . I can’t remember using any new OS that was this quick.'"

"Fast" they say?  Didn't they just say that it came up short in their benchmarks, failing to improve upon Vista.  The publication aptly points out that the user interface is what has been dramatically tweaked and supercharged.  They point out that the average user doesn't care about benchmarks -- they judge the package by the performance (the wrapping).  Improving this is something PC Pro calls an "inspired move".  It may be something Apple realized some time ago with OS X, but then again, Apple always grossly underperformed against Windows in key sectors like business software, security, gaming, and the most important metric of all -- price.

PC World (carrying a ComputerWorld piece) offers a second perspective on this new OS which promises to add a zippier interface to Window's solid underlying layer.  This publication again echoes the sentiments of the others, stating, "Microsoft would like you to believe that Windows 7 is going to be the next great desktop operating system. It's not."

While likening Windows 7’s relation to Vista to Windows 98 Second Edition's and Windows 98, this publication does soften the blow a bit by acknowledging that it is a significant improvement over Windows Vista.  However, the author later goes on to say when he closes, "All things considered, I'd rather stick with my Linux desktops and Mac OS X."

However, another ComputerWorld reviewer, while agreeing with the repeated theme that base benchmarks are similar to Vista, says that this time Microsoft "gets it right".  The author points out the dramatically improved (and less annoying) UAC feature.  They also mention the improved networking support, and other significant improvements.

So there are a couple of second opinions -- one enthusiastic, one rather pessimistic.  Wrapping up, let’s look at three key things: the merits of testing this early build, (briefly) whether Vista was as bad as some say, and lastly what Microsoft needs to do before Windows 7's release (or risk losing customers).

First, many will question why these veteran computer publications are choosing to test a pre-beta, essentially alpha software, when it’s obvious that performance in the finished product may be dramatically different.  While the merits of such tests are certainly debatable, the fact that the Windows 7 release date is likely less than a year away does give an understandable justification for such tests.  Further, criticism of Windows Vista's pre-betas closely mirrored the criticism of the finished product, as can be seen by perusing past reviews.

But how bad was Vista really?  Honestly, Vista was a pretty good OS.  The vast majority of DailyTech staff have at least one Vista machine in the house.  While the OS certainly had its limitations, it brought dramatic improvements to the Windows GUIs and security.  The OS's biggest problem, for the home user was something Microsoft can't be blamed for -- poor hardware partner support. 

The one place where Windows Vista perhaps fell noticeably short was in business adoption.  While it’s true every generation of Windows OS is met with groans and moans from the business community who say that they can't fit it on their older hardware and networks, Windows Vista pushed the memory, network, and processor use envelope even more than XP did.  And while it brought a lot of compelling features to the table, this seriously hurt its business adoption.

This leads into a final point -- what can Windows 7 do to improve between now and its final release?  Obviously, incorporating the missing features demoed at WinHEC and PDC is not only a must, but is a virtual certainty.  Past that, though, Microsoft needs to ensure that hardware and software partners are holding up their end with compatibility.  Again, these problems, mentioned in the original article are not problems from Microsoft, but they become Microsoft's headaches. 

Finally, and most importantly, something has to be done to allow the OS to run leaner and use less memory and system resources.  Otherwise Windows 7 will likely miss the boat on adoption in two key sectors -- netbooks and the business community.  And this would be truly a shame, since Windows 7 looks to offer a number of tempting features.