Rick Ford

For those of you who haven’t heard, Microsoft plans on releasing the next version of Windows, Windows 7, on October 22 of 2009.

This is going to be very exciting. Simply Googling the phrase “Windows 7″ will return countless rave reviews, and as a tester, I can back up every last one of them. Windows 7 runs faster than Windows XP on my 2004 Dell Dimension testing machine. It’s quick, pretty, and easy to use. It’s clean, and smooth. If you haven’t had a chance to try it, you may want to scuffle on over to Microsoft.com soon and give it a shot before the Release Candidate is no longer publicly available.

As for me, I will be purchasing it the day it is released. I have never been this excited about a Windows release before. Actually, I don’t think I’ve been this excited about ANY software release. For serious!

One of the primary reasons I am so excited about Windows 7 is that it is Microsoft’s chance to slap Apple in the face just as equally as Apple did to them with the Apple Switch commercials of 2006-2009. Windows Vista was not a bad operating system. I promise. I have been using it since a few weeks after it was released, and I have never experienced a single one of the problems that everyone says it has. Granted, I bought a computer that met the damned hardware requirements. Apparently those mean nothing to some people, and running a brand new OS on a 6yr old computer should be no problem at all.

I mean, look at it this way: You can’t drive a Ferarri on a dirt road. Well, I guess you can, but it’s not going to be fun. Unless it’s someone else’s Ferrari, of course. Then it’ll be a blast! Am I losing the point here?

Seriously. When you upgraded from Windows 98 to Windows XP, you needed more RAM (and a faster processor helped significantly as well). When you upgraded from OS9 to OSX Tiger, you needed a whole new friggin computer! Snow Leopard will not work on any computer built before 2006 (Yeah, I know. It’s ridiculous.). How is this any different from needing a computer with a 1Ghz processor and 2GB of RAM for an upgrade to Vista? it’s not.

Windows 7, however, has the same hardware requirements as Vista did. That’s what it says on the box anyway. For those of us that have tried it, we know better. It runs just fine on a computer that’s not half as good as the “required” hardware. This is where Microsoft will win. While Apple is dropping older hardware, Microsoft is actually picking it up. A computer that wouldn’t run Vista will, in many cases, run Windows 7 just fine.

Kudos, Microsoft. You’ve done us well. Please please please please keep this philosophy. I’d like to see what you ahve in store for future versions of Internet Explorer and Windows Mobile 7. I’m really getting tired of my iPhone.

Only a day after Google’s first beta release of their upcoming Chrome browser, people are already road-testing it.

Have a look at this Lifehacker post, where the current beta of Chrome, the current beta of the upcoming Firefox 3.1, and the current beta of Internet Explorer 8 are compared for Javascript & CSS performance, startup times, and memory usage.

From what I’ve seen across the web and in my own experience, the new Google Chrome sits right next to Firefox 3. Take that, Microsoft.

http://lifehacker.com/5044668/beta-browser-speed-tests-which-is-fastest

Eep! Google has released their own web browser. Watch out Microsoft!

I took a look. It’s pretty nice. Not a lot of extra crap in the window to crowd your browsing experience. Very clean, and simple. It’s a little shabby on the png transparency, and some of the CSS3 features, but for their first Beta, it’s not bad.

You go Google!

Okay guys…  IE6 has been out for about 7 years.  It’s time to retire it, no?  I don’t think I need to explain why.

Who wants to help me start a petition to Microsoft to force an upgrade to at least IE7, and IE8 when it is released?

I think with Service Pack 3, a newer version of Internet Explorer should be part of the package.  Internet Explorer 6 still being used by about a third of the web population is really starting to hold back the rest of the internet.  It’s time to put this beast to a rest!

As some of you may have heard, Microsoft just released the public beta of the next version of Internet Explorer, version 8.

If you’re dumb like me, and want to try it, here’s the link: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/ie/ie8/default.mspx

So, I installed it on Windows XP SP2, and started using it. I am not lying here, I used it for 5 minutes (yes, 5 minutes) before I found a bug.

Now, let me clarify why this is such a monumental thing that I must blog about it. I expected bugs, it’s Internet Explorer. What I didn’t expect was new bugs. When Microsoft released IE7, they fixed a lot of the bugs that IE6 had. Not all of them, but a lot. So, naturally, I was hoping to see at least a few more bugs fixed. You’ll never guess what I found…

A new bug. Something that worked quasi-correctly in IE6 and IE7, that works completely backwards (yes, backwards) in IE8. z-index, a CSS property designed to set the stack order of positioned elements (lamens terms: lets me make stuff appear to be on top of other stuff, or stacked), actually works completely backwards in IE8.

Microsoft, can you do anything right? That’s not be being a dick… That’s me sincerely asking you. Can you?