Windows 7 readers talk
Readers talk back
Federal Computer Week readers had a variety of reactions to John Breeden's review of Microsoft Windows 7, which judged the new operating system to be solid but not all that much of an advance over its predecessor, Vista.
"I think too many companies, especially the government, have gotten complacent by not asking the tough questions about what they will gain from the upgrade of their systems, whether servers or clients, and instead blindly accept they must upgrade," wrote one unsigned commenter. "Usually the performance gains are minimal and don't justify the expense. Also, people aren't asking why it is that if Vista and these newer OSes provide greater security, why do the majority of Security Bulletins that are released apply to these OSes?"
"I feel that you are very wrong on this 'test,'" wrote Dave from Texas. "I did a clean install on an XP machine that was considered hot for XP, and 7 runs without a hiccup."
"I have done clean installs of Win7 and it runs great!" wrote Tim Gardner from Bradenton, Fla. "Needless to say much better than Vista. And yes, it is Vista revamped and like you have heard, it is what Vista should have been. So far it beats both Vista and XP by a long shot. Emphasis should be made on what it is and not what it was nor derived from."
Rax from North Carolina, responding to other commenters, noted that most ordinary computer users are likely to buy the upgrade version of Windows 7 if they already have Vista, rather than performing the full clean install that requires the more expensive full version. "You guys need to understand from what standpoint Mr. Breeden is coming from," Rax wrote. "I think his article is very well written. You're right about a fresh installation might have a better performance numbers. But look at it from a regular consumer standpoint."