I just finished reading a piece in which the writer questioned what is happening to Windows 7. His opinion is that when Windows 7 was first introduced it had received accolades and positive feedback. He now seems to feel that now that the operating system is going Gold, that some of the shine is dimming and he compares it to OS/2. Surely he must be joking or he has lost his mind.

Comparing OS/2 to Windows 7 is like comparing a 2010 Cadillac CTS to the Ford Model T. We are talking about apples and oranges in the extreme. But there is more to this comparison than meets the eye. This is journalism at its worse. Let me explain myself.

I’ve been reading stuff about Windows since about the time that Windows 3.1 was introduced. At each launch of a new Windows product it is always the same. There are articles which give a glowing report of the new operating system, how it is going to improve on our computing experience and basically appears to have been written by a Microsoft employee. On the flip side we have the person who looks for a flaw, even the tiniest of flaws to pounce on the new operating system while claiming the new product was produced by the devil.

How about a fair, complete and honest approach to evaluating any new operating system? That would be novel. Thank goodness we do have people out there who take their jobs seriously and do indeed provide a fair and balanced report.

So until Windows 7 actually hits the streets and the common folk have a chance to test it, evaluate it, and give it an honest appraisal, everything else must be looked at suspiciously.

Just my 2 cents.

Comments welcome.