-Matthew Bath is technology editor at Which? The opinions expressed are his own.-

Microsoft’s Windows operating system has been frustrating and delighting computer users in almost equal measure since it was first debuted by the software giant first in 1985. Fast forward through nearly a quarter of a century of powering the majority of the world’s personal computers, and Windows is about to hit another milestone.

Windows 7 launches on October 22, worldwide, and it’s safe to say that, as a firm, Microsoft will be collectively crossing fingers and toes that shoppers flock to the new version.

The successor to its Windows Vista operating system, Windows 7 promises to be faster, more reliable and make computing simpler than ever – so much so that like a proud parent, Microsoft hosting worldwide coming-of-age parties to help launch Windows 7 onto PC desktops worldwide.

Yet the key question is whether consumers, already stung by what many found a problematic Windows Vista, are as willing to take a punt on this latest version.

Certainly, it’s chalking up record sales – and Windows 7 has overtaken Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows to become the biggest grossing pre-order on Amazon.co.uk of all time, and the online store says demand for the new operating system remains strong.

So why are shoppers pre-ordering in droves? Partly, it’s because Microsoft fumbled the ball with Windows Vista, leaving some users frustrated and fed-up with an operating system that felt sluggish and crash prone. A chance to jump to a shinier ship is welcomed. Partly, last time lots of people stayed away from the Windows Vista party following negative reports, remaining with the perfectly functional Windows XP instead.

The surge in sales tells only part of the story, however. Which? has talked with shoppers who tell us they are confused by Microsoft’s different versions (with six different prices at the last count), and there are lots of questions around whether the upgrade really is worth the hassle.

Certainly, a lot of the features seem fairly cosmetic on the surface, and some will appeal to only a handful of users. If you’re one of the chosen few to own a touchscreen PC and monitor, then the new multi-touch features in Windows 7 will have you clapping (and pinching and swiping) your hands with glee as your monitor turns into the equivalent of an outsized Apple iPhone.

Other features – such as easier home networking and interface tweaks to make navigation simplier are all good, but seem slight. Rather, Microsoft has been significantly reworking the technology that happens under the hood of Windows, making it less crash prone, faster, and hopefully a better experience.

If you’re happily using Windows Vista, though, then there really isn’t a compelling reason to upgrade as the new features are hardly lengthy.

And if you’re using Windows XP, then Microsoft has a different message for you: your PC is unlikely to run Windows 7 well, and you’ll have to fork out for a new computer. That’s an expense in these economic times that many consumers might find a little tough to swallow.

And, finally, amidst all Windows shopping it’s easy to forget that most new operating system launches are hit with bugs, glitches and incompatible software. That’s normal, but not any less frustrating.

So, if you are looking longingly through the Microsoft-shaped window, our advice is clear. Resist the temptation to upgrade straight off the starting blocks and wait for Microsoft and other software makers to find and fix the niggles and bugs, then feel free to jump in to Windows 7.

– Eric Auchard is a Reuters columnist. The views expressed are his own –

The Chinese government has backed away from mandating filtering software on all personal computers in China, in a move that averts a dangerous escalation in its censorship powers.

But however controversial and unworkable China’s plan to require Internet filters on PCs proved to be, Western firms have largely themselves to blame for creating and selling such filters in the first place.

The danger rears its head whenever technology created to solve some specific security problem is put to new and unintended use, not just in repressive regimes like China, Iran or Saudi Arabia, but professed freedom-loving countries in Europe or the USA.

“What is good and what is evil?” asks Mikko Hypponen, chief research officer at Finnish anti-virus software company F-Secure Corp. “It is really a very basic problem that security people face.”

A computer password cracker in the wrong hands is considered malicious, of course. But corporate network administrators rely on the same tools to recover lost documents when employees forget computer passwords. Voice recognition software used in corporate call centres to automate and improve customer service can be used by police to wiretap suspects on a grand scale.

On Tuesday, China’s official news agency reported that a government ministry had abruptly backed down from requiring that every PC sold in China include a censorship program called “Green Dam-Youth Escort”.

The software blocks web sites using a blacklist of keywords judged to be sexual or politically sensitive, or flesh-coloured images it assumes are naked bodies. But University of Michigan researchers found that the software developed by a Chinese firm had liberally borrowed the code of parental control software CyberSitter from the California-based firm Solid Oak.

Mobile network maker Nokia Siemens Networks was criticized last month after the Iran election protests for supplying “deep packet inspection” technology to mobile phone companies which Iran’s government allegedly used to track online dissidents. The same software for so-called “lawful intercepts” is widely used in phone networks around the world, be it Iran, China or the United States. The main differences are only how far network monitoring goes and to what uses such information is put.

These issues cannot be dismissed merely as unauthorized uses by bad cops in foreign lands. All the world’s biggest technology suppliers play some role in creating security tools that have Janus-like qualities, depending on the intentions of their users.

The dark side of the Internet is not some isolated corner. It is built with the same tools “good guys” use with the best of intentions, without considering their Orwellian surveillance potential. It is just the dual use of networked, interconnected technologies.

Companies such as IBM, Cisco, Intel and Dell are some of the dozens of vendors that market remote data recovery tools to police agencies that can be used to remotely monitor suspects. Once available commercially, it’s only a matter of time before such software is sold or copied for use by authorities in repressive regimes.

Canada’s Absolute Software sells such software for network administrators to track the location and use of all corporate laptops or Blackberries used in their organizations. If a computer is lost or stolen, it can be told to phone the factory every 15 minutes. Absolute then turns over the Internet address of the machine to police to recover the device. In countries with fewer safeguards, such tools can be used to snoop on or prosecute political dissidents.

Hypponen says computers have raised a host of issues that hardly existed in the Cold War era. “Monitoring traditional mail can be done, but takes a lot of manpower,” he says. “E-mail monitoring can be done which takes very little manpower.”

The very openness of the Internet has created a vast market for security tools used for Web filtering, network monitoring and text or video surveillance.

The power of technology to do good needs to be weighed against its powers to do evil. The many positive tasks computers perform for us need to be set against their growing powers as surveillance tools and mechanisms of repression. Just because a technology can be built, doesn’t mean it should be. As consumers, we need to be careful what we wish for in the way of modern conveniences.

– At the time of publication Eric Auchard did not own any direct investments in securities mentioned in this article. He may be an owner indirectly as an investor in a fund. –

(Editing by Martin Langfield)