Gizmodo published their first impressions of the Windows 7 operating system currently being developed by Microsoft.  Microsoft allowed developers and reviewers get a sneak peek of this Vista replacement during this week's Professional Developers Conference.  Gizmodo and other tech blogs have indicated Windows 7, although still incomplete, looks to be a better version of Windows than Vista.  Improvements in boot-up time, work-flow, performance, and user interface all take center stage with this new version of Windows.

In the Gizmodo article, one new feature listed for Windows 7 hopes to improve customer experience with home networking.  As I read how the new feature, HomeGroup, is described...I'm sort of disappointed.

HomeGroup is a re-do of classic workgroup networking, only with the home in mind. The feature will only work on Windows 7, so to test it I'd need a second loaner unit. Still, having set up a basic HomeGroup, at least the initial interface and Microsoft's literature suggest that this will simplify viewing content across multiple machines, and sharing printers and other products. Let's hope so, because it could also be one of those classic "Why won't this work for me????" networking wizards. (Or is it just me who gets those?)

Don't get me wrong, I applaud Microsoft for simplifying and viewing network connectivity.  However, I'm troubled that HomeGroup will only work on Windows 7 systems.  In my own home, I currently have a mix of XP, Vista, Linux, and Mac OS X systems.  I just wonder how long it is going to take most families to see any real benefit of HomeGroup in Windows 7?  Even for those homes without Macs and Linux systems, it is going to take a few years before those Windows XP and Vista systems are replaced.  It will be interesting to see how HomeGroup evolves in later versions of Windows 7.

There is so much that I want to do here at CMS Report, but my time has been limited these past couple weeks.  Some things that have been going on in my world:

1. As a judge for Packt Publishing's Open Source CMS Awards, I gave the publishing company my vote on the "Most Promising" CMS.  I dedicated a couple weekends to get the job done and I plan to post my reviews after Packt announces the winners (October 28).
2. I made the decision to drop my reseller account for Dakota Hosting.  The number of clients I host are few and over the past two years I've only been breaking even.
3. My post on Dell's Inspiron Mini 12 netbook brought in quite a bit of traffic to the site.  It looks like I may be a couple weeks off in my prediction for when this new netbook will finally hit the market.
   

Handy note to keep ready for the boss when he asks if we should upgrade to Vista or not.

InfoWorld:  Our tests show that Windows Vista and Office 2007 not only smash Redmond’s previous records for weight gain, but given the same hardware diet, run at less than half the speed of generation XP.

Now, to be honest I really do like Microsoft's Office 2007 and most of my people would give it a thumbs up.  It is Vista that I have a hard time accepting.  How do you justify Microsoft's Vista in the office...especially when everything just seems to run slower on Vista..

Last Tuesday evening, I upgraded my Windows Vista desktop to Service Pack 1. If you regularly visit my blog, you know that I'm a long-time user of both Windows and Linux. You also know, that I've been deeply disappointed in Windows Vista.

The install of Vista SP1 went smoothly and I haven't discovered any of the driver issues other Windows users are having. This shouldn't be a surprise since I did have good luck running my box on the SP1 RC1 Refresh. Performance has been slightly improved since the original version of Vista. More importantly, I don't have to reboot my PC once a day just so I can get my LAN connectivity back. In short, Vista users will want to upgrade to SP1, but I still recommend those happy with their Windows XP, Linux, or Mac desktops to stay exactly right where they are.

"At day's end, what I found was that Vista SP1 really has not improved that much from Vista. The Linux desktop, on the other hand, has improved since I first compared MEPIS 6 to Vista. It's not so much Linux has improved its performance as it has increased its ease of use and hardware compatibility. The Linux desktop of early 2008 is clearly better than the Linux desktop of early 2007. The same cannot be said of Vista."

- Steven J. Vaughan-Nicholas, "Vista SP1: Still lagging behind the Linux desktop", DesktopLinux.com, March 4, 2008

I have a long history of using Windows and Linux systems at my place of work. I'm not into Windows bashing as the operating system and other Microsoft software historically has been a much needed standard for the business world. When my workplace had a choice of either installing a Windows 2003 server or a Linux server to support administrative functions, I chose Windows over Linux. However, as much as I wanted to see Windows Vista succeed in the office, I just don't see a future with Vista. Vista reminds me too much of Windows ME.

The latest review I've read on the KDE desktop is from Ars Technica, A first look at KDE 4.0 release candidate 2. While the author notes that a lot of improvements still need to be made to KDE 4.0, overall it should be an impressive desktop. I'm contemplating that my next laptop will be fully Linux and hoping KDE 4.0 will bring enough Wow to impress others on why I didn't choose to go the Windows or Mac route.

Last summer, I reluctantly chose Windows Vista for my home desktop computer. I mainly bought the system knowing I needed an edge for when we finally introduced the new Microsoft operating system at work (so far we continue to downgrade our boxes at work from Vista to XP). Needless to say, I'm not too impressed with Vista.

There are some that argue that Vista was released too soon, but I'll argue that after five years of development, it was released to late. I can't help but wonder if post versions of Windows XP had been released in a 1 to 2 year cycle how much better developers would have a handle on the bugs and users would have understood the new features.

"To describe Vista's performance as dismal would be understatement of the year....So I took the brave step of reformatting the drive on one machine and installing Ubuntu Linux instead."

Complete Story

Alex Faaborg has some mock-up images on his blog of what Firefox 3 will look like on both Microsoft's Windows Vista and Apple's Mac OS X.  I have yet to see any images for what Firefox 3 may look on a Linux box and many of those commenting are also not happy Linux was left out of the picture.

You can see the mock-ups yourself by clicking here.

The visual for Firefox 3 on Vista looks very nice but I'm not so sure about the the visual for the Mac.  The Mozilla bloggers are giving a lot of reasons for why Firefox on the Mac will look the way it does...and that worries me.  The more effort someone spends trying to convince me of something, the more evident it is to me that the idea isn't selling itself.

With a bid underway to obtain the blessing of the Open Source Initiative for two of its software licenses, Microsoft is working to burnish its open source credentials. Here are the 25 most active projects, as of August 21, on Microsoft's CodePlex open source project hosting Web site, along with the licenses under which the projects have been released.

• Windows Vista Support: Many enhancements and fixes for Windows Vista are included along with the following caveats.

• New Languages: Beta releases for several new languages are now available for testing.

• Permissions Bug Fixed: In the German (de) locale on Windows and Linux, resolved a problem with certain files tagged as read-only.

This update is now available on Windows Update for Windows Vista users and will be made available in February for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 users. All users can download it now here along with related KB article 928089.

"Corporate buyers may be slow to adopt the new operating system and Office business programs."

Complete Story

This is an interesting debate. Is Microsoft really being a monopoly when it comes to securing and patching its own operating system? Shouldn't we expect to be able to buy a computer operating system that is secure so we don't need anti-virus software in the first place? It is interesting, the marketplace for consumer products that Microsoft inadvertently created is upset at Microsoft for reducing the need to buy third-party. So what, consumers should have a less secure operating system and be required to buy a third party anti-virus software? BusinessWeek reports:

McAfee (MFE) placed a full-page ad in the Financial Times to run an open letter against Microsoft (MSFT), saying the software giant is abusing monopoly power to promote its own line of security products—a claim Symantec started to make loudly last week in public statements. Said Samenuk in the letter, "Microsoft seems to envision a world in which one giant company not only controls the systems that drive most computers around the world but also the security that protects those computers from viruses and other online threats. Only one approach protecting us all: when it fails, it fails for 97% of the world's desktops."

In this particular case, I'm not so sure I see Microsoft is doing anything wrong. Doesn't Microsoft have an obligation to protect us from the security holes in it's operating system? What do you think? Read the full article at BusinessWeek and let us know what you think.