Windows 7 setup disappoints

I installed Windows 7 this evening. My first impression is disappointment. Microsoft has improved the Windows install program (compared to the old setup programs for Windows 2000 and Windows XP) yet still lags behind the typical Linux install program.

On the plus side, the Windows 7 setup program runs smoothly and recognizes hardware beyond the basic VGA (640x480) video cards. It found drivers for my video card and network card, something that earlier versions of the Windows install did not do. It runs in GUI mode, not in text mode. The old white-on-blue text scheme is gone!

That about sums up the good things.

Windows 7 installs from a DVD, not a CD. Perhaps this is Microsoft's way of ensuring a recent vintage PC. Yet all of the Linux distros that I have tried use CDs, even the bloat-ish SuSE distro. Did Microsoft think carefully about this aspect? Demanding a DVD reader forfeits all of the old PCs to Linux. It may make the Windows install easier, but it gives up market share. (I myself have several PCs with CD-not-DVD readers.)

Windows 7 offers no "Live CD" version, to let you run off the CD (or DVD) without installing on your hard disk. This is a convenient and useful feature of an operating system -- you can verify that it will work with your devices before you commit to the install. With Windows 7, you must commit and hope for the best. (Although Windows seems to have drivers for various cards.)

The install lets you select a partition, which is a nice change from the previous approach of "we are using your hard disk". Yet it gives you no option to adjust the partitions. You must (apparently) use a third-party disk partitioner (perhaps from a Linux Live CD) and then install Windows 7. (On the other hand, by not adjusting partitions, Windows 7 does not have to worry about adjusting file systems including those "foreign" file systems like ext3 or ext4.)

Windows 7, if it finds an old Windows system, keeps the files in the directory "Windows.old". There is no "take over the entire disk I don't care what's there" option.

The Windows 7 install requires three restarts to complete. (OK, one of them is at the very end after Windows has downloaded updates.) Yet the typical Linux install requires zero restarts. (SuSE does need one, though.)

The setup is divided poorly into a number of tasks: copying files, expanding files, installing features, installing updates, and then a generic "completing installation". This last vague tasks takes the longest amount of time (almost an hour) with no progress indication.

Windows, being a Microsoft product, requires activation. The install disc comes with a product code, on a sticker. The typeface is rather small and hard to read. Perhaps easier for younger eyes, this demonstrates a bias against older users.

The setup asks some questions up front and then some at the end. This arrangement is better than earlier installs which asked questions at mulitple points of the install, but it could be better. Why not ask all questions up front and then perform all operations?

In the end, the setup program does get the job done. Windows 7 is now up and running. From a purely pragmatic view, the setup program works and performs as expected. From a marketing view,  the program fails: it does nothing to endear me to Windows or Microsoft.It has fewer capabilities than competing Linux, the user interface is acceptable (and possibly cutting edge by Microsoft standards) but it does not delight.

I use the setup program once and then I use Windows. Let's ignore the shortcomings of the install program and look at Windows 7. I'll report on my findings in the future.