backtop


Print 70 comment(s) - last by DotNetGuru.. on Nov 9 at 12:21 PM

Microsoft strikes it big with Windows 7

While Apple seems to be content with "going negative" when it comes to commercials touting its computing products, Microsoft has taken a different route with Windows 7. Apple has focused more on bashing Windows 7 (and the faults of its predecessors) rather than focus on the main strengths of the OS X platform. Microsoft, on the other hand, has created positive ads which tout the new features in Windows 7.

It appears that Microsoft's positive route -- along with relatively positive reviews -- have led to some rather impressive sales numbers for the latest and greatest from Redmond, Washington. According to NPD Group, boxed unit sales for Windows 7 during the first week of availability were up 234% compared to it's predecessor, Windows Vista. However, due to an increased use of discounts – such as $50 and $100 Home Premium and Professional upgrades for general consumers, along with $30 Home Premium and Professional upgrades for students – meant that dollar sales were up just 82%, which still isn't too shabby at all for Microsoft.

Total Windows PC sales (including Windows 7, Vista, and XP machines) were up 49% year-over-year compared to 69% when Vista launched. Sales in relation to the week prior to launch were up 95% for Windows PCs versus 170% for Windows Vista during its retail launch in 2007.

NPD predicts that things are looking good for Windows 7 in the coming weeks. “A combination of factors impacted Windows 7 PC sales at the outset, but the trajectory of overall PC sales is very strong leading into the holiday season,” said NPD Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis. 

Not surprisingly, Microsoft is quite happy about the numbers. Microsoft's Brandon LeBlanc posted on the Windows Team Blog, “It has been quite amazing to watch the global excitement build around Windows 7, especially during a tough economic climate. It was just a few short weeks ago that we learned about Windows 7 outselling the UK's "own" Harry Potter. In Japan, anxious PC users waited in line to be one of the first to get their hands on Windows 7.”



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Good news.
By RjBass on 11/5/2009 7:44:39 PM , Rating: 3
This is good news for Microsoft, and they really needed it after the Vista failure. 7 is indeed a really nice OS. I am using now as I type this.




RE: Good news.
By 2bdetermine on 11/5/2009 8:43:35 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't go that far portrait Vista as a failure. It's more like Win7 work in progress.


RE: Good news.
By AnnihilatorX on 11/6/2009 5:40:31 AM , Rating: 2
It's not as bad a OS as people say , but the sales figure was a failure and the OS is nevertheless a disappointment for many.


RE: Good news.
By dark matter on 11/6/2009 8:37:38 AM , Rating: 3
Win + E & Win + Left Arrow
Win + E & Win + Right Arrow

You have two windows explorers perfectly aligned and maximised sharing 50% of the screen real estate each.

How is that not any good?

Incremental data backups (file based / block based) built into the OS that can use a network address, external USB hardrive or an internal drive to store. The ability to recover individual files from the backup.

I have mine to backup my work data daily at 8pm. The first backup takes a while, any other backups are just delta backups.

Those are just two features over Vista that make Windows 7 worth buying.


RE: Good news.
By Spivonious on 11/6/2009 9:19:54 AM , Rating: 4
Vista had the same backup features as 7. It's just that Home Premium didn't include the image-based backup.

As far as Aero "Snap", I can't say I've ever used it except during my Windows Party demo.


RE: Good news.
By jonmcc33 on 11/6/2009 10:34:23 AM , Rating: 2
Most people used Home Premium so it was sort of odd to include it but yet not include it.

Now for Windows 7 Home Premium the ability to do a backup is there for USB storage devices.


RE: Good news.
By Jedi2155 on 11/6/2009 7:09:23 PM , Rating: 2
Aero snap is without a doubt my favorite feature on Windows 7 so far. When working with sometimes dozens of documents needing to comparing information, it becomes a whole lot easier and cleaner looking then doing it manually. Whenever I'm on another OS, I now try to aero snap only to my disappointment that its not windows 7....


RE: Good news.
By DotNetGuru on 11/9/2009 12:21:59 PM , Rating: 2
Previous versions of Windows had similar functionality. You just right click the taskbar and select "Show Windows Side by Side" from the context menu. In fact, that even works with 3 or more windows and can stack them top to bottom (stacked) or left to right. (minimize any other windows first)

Anyway, Win7 is pretty slick and I'm glad MS did such a good job on this one (they usually do).


RE: Good news.
By CurseTheSky on 11/5/2009 8:46:22 PM , Rating: 5
I'm currently using Vista Ultimate x64, and my new laptop has Windows 7 Home Premium x64. Over the past week and a half (or so), I've used both computers almost equally.

I really don't see how Windows 7 is much better. Sure, there are a few nice features (automatic horizontal tiling of windows, for example) and some things are nicely reorganized, but for the most part it's the same old thing (and that's not a bad thing). Vista had plenty of issues early on (just like Xp, 98, 95, etc.), but having used Vista for a couple of years now, Xp just feels archaic.

Windows 7 is merely a marketing success where Vista was a marketing failure.


RE: Good news.
By Nfarce on 11/5/2009 9:22:00 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I really don't see how Windows 7 is much better.


That's exactly it - it's not. I was a late adapter to Vista x64, doing so just a half year ago for a scratch built gaming rig. Win7 is geared towards the Vista skippers (which I probably would have been had I not wanted a new build) and yields little benefits for those currently running Vista on fast systems.

MS hit a home run here and I'll upgrade with an full OEM install next year after SP1 is released. I do find the typical arrogant Apple Win7 response commercial slightly amusing however:

"Windows 7 will be better and fix all the problems...Windows Vista will be better and fix all the problems...Windows XP will be better and fix all the problems...Windows 98 will be better and fix all the problems...Windows 95 will be better and fix all the problems..."

Heh.

But how's your Snow Leopard, Apple? Too bad Apple will never be a main stream household/office PC though.


RE: Good news.
By ElderTech on 11/5/2009 11:12:44 PM , Rating: 2
Where Win7 shows the most advantage over Vista is with SSDs. Besides the initial partition offset advantage during installation, which depends on the particular SSD, the advent of TRIM will really define the optimal benefit for newer SSDs for this OS.


RE: Good news.
By CurseTheSky on 11/6/2009 2:08:17 AM , Rating: 2
That is true, but I'm still not convinced that it's something they couldn't add into Vista, or even Xp for that matter.

I just happen to be running my main system with an 160GB X-25M G2 too. I'll eventually "upgrade" to Windows 7 just for TRIM support, but it feels like such a waste.


RE: Good news.
By dark matter on 11/6/2009 8:42:00 AM , Rating: 2
How about the WDDM 1.1 in Windows 7?

In Vista it had to keep a cache of every open window in memory. This was one of the reasons Vista was such a resource hog. The more open windows the memory Vista would need.

In Windows 7 there is now hardware acceleration of the 2D GDI/Direct2D operations. Windows 7 no longer needs to create this cache.

If you believe Windows 7 to be more responsive than Vista. It is because it is, and this is the reason why.


RE: Good news.
By Nfarce on 11/6/2009 12:48:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In Vista it had to keep a cache of every open window in memory. This was one of the reasons Vista was such a resource hog. The more open windows the memory Vista would need.


And hence my earlier comment above, Vista ran only as good as the system it was on. I never had memory problems w/4GB and running many open processes on a mere Dual Core E8400 (O/C'd to 4.4GHz). It is just as snappy running MS FSX and five programs running in the background as with one program running.


RE: Good news.
By dark matter on 11/6/2009 2:33:23 PM , Rating: 2
It wasn't the processes that were eating memory. It was caching every GDI window that was causing that problem. 1Gb systems were being crippled due to people opening lots of windows.

Even on a 1Gb system Windows 7 won't be affected.


RE: Good news.
By jonmcc33 on 11/6/2009 9:31:34 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Win7 is geared towards the Vista skippers (which I probably would have been had I not wanted a new build) and yields little benefits for those currently running Vista on fast systems.


IMO that is not true. I switched to Vista x64 full time about 12 months after RTM, just in time for SP1 to hit thankfully. After SP1 I became a huge advocate for Windows Vista, especially how much safer it was than Windows XP. Windows 7 isn't necessarily a performance king over Windows Vista but it does bring a lot of other nice features that I actually use.

I love the new Superbar as I have pinned all of my most used applications to it. I love the Sticky Notes and have them all over my desktop with actual visual reminders of things to do. I love the new Aero Snap, Shake and Peek and I use them at a disturbing rate. I do love that it is lighter on system resources even though I have a high end rig. I use Windows XP Mode at work for older applications that our developers intelligently wrote for Windows XP.

Microsoft didn't make a brand new OS. They evolved Windows Vista into something that everyone can use.


RE: Good news.
By Nfarce on 11/6/2009 12:44:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
IMO that is not true. I switched to Vista x64 full time about 12 months after RTM, just in time for SP1 to hit thankfully. After SP1 I became a huge advocate for Windows Vista, especially how much safer it was than Windows XP. Windows 7 isn't necessarily a performance king over Windows Vista but it does bring a lot of other nice features that I actually use.


Okay, maybe my wording wasn't clear. Let's try this: Win7 is primarily marketed towards those who skipped Vista and offers minor improvements for those currently using Vista and who have to have the latest and greatest OS always. MS is also hopeful that this OS release will stop some of the users who left Windows boxes and bought Apple for the first time ever.

If you think MS spent the kind of money they did on pumping up and marketing Win7 to current Vista users, you are definitely wrong.


RE: Good news.
By jonmcc33 on 11/6/2009 4:55:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Win7 is primarily marketed towards those who skipped Vista and offers minor improvements for those currently using Vista and who have to have the latest and greatest OS always.


Considering their current advertising campaign about all the new and extremely useful features of Windows 7 I do not think they are merely targeting Windows XP users. They are showing off features that Vista does not have.

quote:
MS is also hopeful that this OS release will stop some of the users who left Windows boxes and bought Apple for the first time ever.


I do not think that in this economy if someone was wasteful enough to dump a load of money on a Mac within the past couple years that they are going to switch back to a PC anytime soon.

quote:
If you think MS spent the kind of money they did on pumping up and marketing Win7 to current Vista users, you are definitely wrong.


Well, after my experience on the Beta and RC I was sold. I switched from Windows Vista to Windows 7 and did not look back.

IMO the percentage of people that will stick with Vista as opposed to upgrading to Windows 7 are smaller than you pretend to imagine.


RE: Good news.
By Yawgm0th on 11/5/2009 11:35:47 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Windows 7 is merely a marketing success where Vista was a marketing failure.
I disagree. Windows 7 does offer actual technical improvements. The strongest of them will be felt by less-savvy users, but it helps everyone. I/O is better in 7. Core utilization is better. SSD support is better. Even the interface is a little better.

Honestly, it feels very much like an upgrade of XP from 2000. Sure, at the kernel level they are nearly identical. They use the same drivers and work with the same programs (or used to, before 2000 stopped getting active support). Still, there are some low-level improvements and lots of high-level improvements.

For the record, I still think XP is great. At this point properly utilizing more than 3GB of RAM and 64-bit support are becoming important enough that XP doesn't cut it. XP is still much leaner than 7 (reports otherwise are greatly exaggerated) and in many ways more reliable. Ultimately, hardware support is what it comes down to. Just don't bring up mention XP x64.


RE: Good news.
By Harinezumi on 11/6/2009 1:02:40 AM , Rating: 2
What's wrong with XP64? I've been running it ever since I built my new gaming rig this spring, and have had no issues with it whatsoever.

The only piece of software I had trouble installing on it was 64-bit iTunes, whose installer checks the OS version and refuses to install on XP without a bit of .msi hackery, but works fine otherwise.


RE: Good news.
By stubeck on 11/6/2009 8:11:02 AM , Rating: 4
Lack of driver support, and poor memory management. We are switching to Vista 64 bit at work because of both.


RE: Good news.
By jonmcc33 on 11/6/2009 10:18:51 AM , Rating: 2
Windows XP x64 is almost as bad as Windows ME as far as Microsoft is concerned. It was a giant experiment that never really caught on. Heck, when Microsoft released Microsoft Security Essentials it isn't even supported on Windows XP x64 yet it is for Windows XP 32-bit.


RE: Good news.
By mixpix on 11/6/2009 6:36:52 AM , Rating: 2
No problems with x64 either and Windows 7 runs/feels faster/snappier than Vista in pretty much every way to me.

"(reports otherwise are greatly exaggerated)" Where are the reports showing otherwise? I've seen a lot of close "benchmarks", never anything exaggerated or over the top.


RE: Good news.
By dark matter on 11/6/2009 8:52:47 AM , Rating: 2
WDDM 1.1 Driver. The 2D interface is faster! Hence the reason it feels faster/snappier.

:)


RE: Good news.
By Yawgm0th on 11/6/2009 3:58:33 PM , Rating: 2
People anecdotally, especially on forums, like to spout that Windows 7 is almost as fast as XP, even on older hardware. That's just not true. If you take down all of the feature enhancements, especially the interface, XP is still faster and more responsive out of the box.

As far as benchmarks go, on modern hardware Windows 7 can be faster. But benchmarks measure specific items performance, and often it's a synthetic measurement. In terms of real-world usability doing simple tasks like opening programs, moving files, etc., XP is still better than Vista or 7 on anything but mid-to-high-end modern systems. "Reports otherwise are greatly exaggerated."

And yes, XP x64 has issues. It was like an unstable, unsupported Server 2003 x64 (which its kernel is based on). Admittedly, driver support is and was the bigger issue than actual OS problems, but when it comes down to it it's just not a professional OS on the level of XP, Vista, or 7.


RE: Good news.
By Zingam on 11/9/2009 9:44:09 AM , Rating: 2
Do you have any idea how much faster Win95 is :)


RE: Good news.
By jonmcc33 on 11/9/2009 11:56:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
XP is still faster and more responsive out of the box.


And how many users use Windows XP as it comes out of the box? No, because it is so insecure (programs run with full admin rights by default) people put about a dozen spyware prevention applications, 3rd party firewalls and system controlling security suites like Norton 360 or McAfee on their computers. That makes them safer but also much slower.


RE: Good news.
By The0ne on 11/6/2009 1:32:52 PM , Rating: 4
I agree, Vista users really shouldn't shell out the money for Windows 7 unless they really need to. I mean, Vista should have been what Win7 is and now MS wants you to pay for it :/ to have a version 7.

But for people who skipped Vista entirely, even if they did buy it >< like me, it's a worthy upgrade from XP. This time around the OS is working 95% of the time, with the help and maturity of Vista of course, and that in itself is a consumer seller.


RE: Good news.
By blaster5k on 11/5/2009 8:53:59 PM , Rating: 2
Failure? Windows 7 could almost pass for Vista SP3. It's an improvement, but not a major one. I didn't think there was anything wrong with Vista. It just got a bad rap -- largely because of bad drivers early on by certain vendors.

They change the name and now people love it.


RE: Good news.
By inighthawki on 11/5/2009 11:11:04 PM , Rating: 3
I see a lot of people make this argument and in the end I think it boils down to UI and looks. Yes windows 7 WAS in fact a minor update, but when you take a look at new features, there is a lot. A lot of people look at it and say "oh it looks the same, a few noticeable things, vista SP3" but the fact of the matter is that 99% of the updates are under the hood. New features, performance increases, major security improvements, etc are all things you can't physically see and measure.


RE: Good news.
By Diesel Donkey on 11/5/2009 11:24:12 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe they should have called it Windows Mojave.


RE: Good news.
By jonmcc33 on 11/6/2009 11:02:22 AM , Rating: 3
All of the features that they added to Windows 7 would make it beyond a Service Pack. The Superbar, Sticky Notes, Bitlocker To Go, Windows XP Mode, AeroPeek, etc.

Please stop calling Windows 7 a Service Pack because it is not. In no Windows Service Pack release has an OS changed so much and included so many new features.


RE: Good news.
By RjBass on 11/5/2009 10:40:01 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, maybe I should clarify. I used Vista Ultimate 64bit for over a year. I had it installed on a nice gaming rig, and for the most part I didn't have any issues. As a system builder I have sold many Vista machines to people, with 0 complaints. But the general public opinion of Vista is not good. It's not good at all. In that regard, Vista is a failure, hence the reason why Microsoft was keen on getting a stable release of 7 out as fast as they could.


RE: Good news.
By jrb531 on 11/6/2009 12:41:56 PM , Rating: 3
For the last time!

Stop spouting incorrect facts...

Vista was far far better at release than XP ever was!

XP took well over a year to become stable. Vista (and MS's) failure was to make darn sure that 3rd party drivers were up to date on release.

How many "failed" Vista installs were due to placing the OS on hardware that should never have run it (MS's fault) and how many installs were due to NRFPT drivers from the likes of Nvidia and HP etc....?

How many issues were really due to Vista iteself?

How many people dumped on Vista who never used it because they heard from a friend of a friend who's brothers sister's neighbor read on a postage stamp that Vista sucked?

Think for yourselves people! Vista had issues on release but not nearly what people attributed their problem to.

Nvidia's drivers were so horrid that I could not play any of my games. Once Nvidia fixed their drivers (months later) and everything then worked. If this MS's fault?


RE: Good news.
By The0ne on 11/6/2009 1:40:28 PM , Rating: 2
Because of the lack on info from reputable sources many of us got fooled into buying Vista and finding out for ourselves how unusable the OS was due to 3rd party driver support. It's the fault of MS and 3rd party companies IMO. None of them should have given the thumbs up and release the OS in such a poorly supported state.

Vista had great marketing alright, for a bad product that wasn't ready for the masses. For many of us it was already too late to gain regain the confidence back, even after SP1. You just don't release something that you KNOW isn't ready. And trust me the companies KNOW. It's not like no one did any testing on their own.


I am the proud purchaser of a Windows 7 box!
By cubby1223 on 11/5/09, Rating: 0
By kingpotnoodle on 11/6/2009 5:42:24 AM , Rating: 3
Get with the times, make the change, enjoy 4GB+ of RAM, 64 bit extensions, faster network transfers, slicker UI, don't stick with something old just because it's familiar...


RE: I am the proud purchaser of a Windows 7 box!
By Spivonious on 11/6/2009 9:24:17 AM , Rating: 3
I have similar PCs at work and at home. Home is running 7 x64, and work is running XP SP3.

The work PC is downright sluggish compared to the home PC.

It's time to ditch XP and join the people using a modern OS.


RE: I am the proud purchaser of a Windows 7 box!
By HotFoot on 11/6/2009 11:46:30 AM , Rating: 2
Work computers are always horribly sluggish compared to home computers. That has more to do with all the networking, automated backups, etc. etc. that the workplace has running in the background. My work laptop takes a good 2-3 minutes minimum to turn on and be usable, running XP. At home, a similar spec'd machine would be ready in about 45 seconds.

Once I upgraded to an SSD, XP would launch so fast to a usable state you hardly had a chance to blink - the BIOS POST and drive detection part of starting the computer took much longer than loading the OS.

Actually, I've found that Win 7 slowed down my boot times compared to XP on the identical system. It's still fast, but I attribute that to the SSD. I don't know how Win 7 compares to XP for booting from a HDD though.


By Spivonious on 11/9/2009 10:44:18 AM , Rating: 2
Being in the IT department, I can assure you that my work PC is streamlined. Nothing is running on here that I don't know about. It's still much much slower. I will admit that it boots extremely fast, but that's mostly due to Dell's ultra-quick POSTing.


By GodisanAtheist on 11/6/2009 12:37:51 PM , Rating: 2
Congratulations!

I'd like to personally thank you for making the internet a more dangerous place for the rest of us through providing a home for trojans, viruses and bot-nets.


So what
By crystal clear on 11/5/2009 7:57:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Early Windows 7 Retail Box Sales Up 234% Compared to Vista


Meaningless stastics !

Come up with something more interesting !




RE: So what
By MonkeyPaw on 11/5/2009 10:27:19 PM , Rating: 2
Every 5 minutes, a new statistic is created.


RE: So what
By StoveMeister on 11/6/2009 1:39:02 AM , Rating: 3
57.25% of all statistics are pulled out of thin air :)


RE: So what
By NagoyaX on 11/5/2009 10:42:32 PM , Rating: 2
well in stats class, i was always told there are lies, dam lies and statistics


RE: So what
By ajfink on 11/6/2009 1:42:03 AM , Rating: 2
It's a great, great quote from history. It's often attributed initially to Mark Twain/Samuel Clemens, but most likely originated with British statesman Benjamin Disraeli. It's amazing how some things people say never, ever weaken in their truth and applicability.

It even has its own Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_an...


Not for me
By DrApop on 11/6/2009 8:57:14 AM , Rating: 1
AMD 5000 XII, 2 gig ram, and on board vid. Win 7 says I need better vid to run Aero. and 2 gig is a min for win 7.

I'll just stick with XP thank you. Someone tell me a really good reason to upgrade.

XP runs all my streaming video, I can do the web, run my office programs, play DVD's (I still don't understand the big deal on HD), I've never had a virus or been hacked, I run wireless, I can burn to CD and DVD. What else do I need to do or what extra can I do with win 7 that it is worth paying for more ram and a video card?




RE: Not for me
By docmilo on 11/6/2009 10:44:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What else do I need to do or what extra can I do with win 7 that it is worth paying for more ram and a video card?

You can get a Aero capable video card for $35 to $40 about anywhere online. It's rediculous how cheap 2 more gigs of ram for your machine will cost. If you're running DX 8 onboard video, you deserve XP and there is really no need for you to comment about Win 7.

I installed Win 7 RC on my wifes laptop running a 3200 Athlon with 200M graphics and it ran sweet. The only issue was my wife's Quickbooks didn't run on it and she is afraid of upgrading to a Win 7 compatable version.

If a 200M onboard laptop can run Win 7 just fine, I'ld hate to know what onboard video you're driving around.


RE: Not for me
By Zingam on 11/9/2009 9:47:57 AM , Rating: 2
When you upgrade your PC the new Windows OS will matter for you.


MS
By Yaos on 11/5/2009 8:50:26 PM , Rating: 3
Vista was fine, it was stupid people and stupid developers that messed it up. What's that, only two years to get working drivers before retail ships? Not on our watch!




Snow Lep
By damianrobertjones on 11/6/2009 6:22:45 AM , Rating: 3
DailyTech ran an article stating that SNow Lep had hit the Amazon number 1 spot. I understand that Windows 7 smashed that with PRE-orders.

Any chance of a story to keep things level or is it based on who's paying today?

P.s. Love WIndows 7.




And they need...
By Chocobollz on 11/6/2009 3:35:42 AM , Rating: 2
A pair of ace and 5, or 5 and 6 to make a straight. The question is, will they make it? ;-)




It's all very simple
By eldardude on 11/6/2009 6:47:04 AM , Rating: 2
Most people are superficial. Reading the comments here and hearing people talk proves that. If Microsoft wanted 7 to be a *grand* leap from Vista. All they needed to do was to create a new and slick looking UI that looks nothing like Vista.

As it stands, in my opinion, 7 is what Vista should have been from the beginning. It's a great OS, and will easily outlive Vista, and probably another future OS.




good stuff
By lordslix0129 on 11/8/2009 2:42:12 PM , Rating: 1
This is good news for Microsoft. I used Vista on and off for the past 1.5 years, and I was not impressed with it at all; but I am a very stubborn individual, and I forced myself to stick with it even though it was a pain in the ass to run for a while. In the end, I came to the conclusion that Vista is junk. I know a lot of the problems were directly related to third party manufacturers, who couldn't make stable enough drivers for the OS, but I feel that was Microsofts problem more than anybody else. Them trying to create a new FS and then abandoning the project in the middle of development was what really fucked everything up. Eventually I went back to XP SP3. I never have problems with XP SP3.

I had Windows 7 running for about 7 or 8 months, and it was a lot faster than XP is, but I was still having some serious problems with the I/O subsystems, though I believe the 3rd party manu's that were responsible for coming out with stable drivers for it, have fixed those issues. Overall, 7 is much better and faster than Vista, but I still feel its too unstable to warrant running on any of my machines. And no, I don't wanna dual boot. Until SP1 is released, I'll run 7 in a VM.




Windows 7 is garbage.
By reader1 on 11/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: Windows 7 is garbage.
By someguy123 on 11/5/2009 7:51:39 PM , Rating: 3
now you're not even trying.


RE: Windows 7 is garbage.
By themaster08 on 11/6/2009 3:17:17 AM , Rating: 3
Well, what else is there to say?

Even Apple themselves with their half-assed attempts to jab Windows 7, have to resort to previous versions of Windows to do so.

Windows 7 has them all stumped. The most constructive argument I've seen from a Mac fanboy since it's release is "DON'T BUY WINDOWS 7, SAVE YOUR MONEY AND BUY A MAC!!!!!!11111"

Umm.... no.


RE: Windows 7 is garbage.
By jhb116 on 11/5/2009 7:50:12 PM , Rating: 5
Then do so and stop posting - dumbass


RE: Windows 7 is garbage.
By Alexstarfire on 11/5/2009 8:29:38 PM , Rating: 1
If you can, then do so. I'd gladly purchase something better than what's on the market.


RE: Windows 7 is garbage.
By Pirks on 11/5/2009 10:03:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I could easily design a better OS
Not interesting. How about designing OS better than Mac OS X? Can you do that, eh? ;)


RE: Windows 7 is garbage.
RE: Windows 7 is garbage.
By Pirks on 11/6/2009 11:17:32 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for unrelated link, question to reader1 still stands.


numbers
By Screwballl on 11/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: numbers
By CurseTheSky on 11/5/2009 8:41:41 PM , Rating: 2
So, if Vista is Windows ME version 2, then is Windows 7 Windows ME version 3?

Oh wait, sorry; I forgot that Windows 7 isn't based on Vista in the slightest...


RE: numbers
By Screwballl on 11/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: numbers
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/5/2009 10:38:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
no because W7 is a completely rebuilt and brand new kernel, not just a rebuilt Vista kernel which was a major reason for the problems in Vista. They may number it close to Vista but this is more of a new OS than an update.

Whoever told you that is off their meds. Windows 7 under the hood has few major changes, and nearly no changes to the kernel.


RE: numbers
By Screwballl on 11/6/2009 10:14:33 AM , Rating: 1
As a long time tech and IT guy (over 15 years experience), I have dug into the beta and RC coding enough to see that W7 is its own OS. Vista was a piece of trash thrown together jumble of coding...

It started as the Longhorn project but by the time Vista was released, it was a quarter XP, half WS2003 and quarter Longhorn project with ill conceived and executed APIs just thrown on top of a kernel, and as we all saw the released OS was disastrous.

The Service Packs were more of a few fixes to get it working better but they tended to be more patches to remove the crappy coding and move it closer to WS2003/2007. Look at the timeframe of updates for WS2003 and 2007 and Vista... they all coincided with each other. The SP2 Vista we see now has been modified so a majority of the coding and fixes actually turned it into WS2003 with a few tweaks.

Windows 7 has more changes under the hood when compared to Vista, than Vista did compared to XP... and until you dig into the code and see for yourself, you have no room to claim otherwise.

I have done some journalism as well (on and off for 17 years), I know the difference between a writer that reads lots of stuff, and those that have actually dug in and SEEN the code itself (not just some shiny top side GUI).


RE: numbers
By jonmcc33 on 11/6/2009 11:27:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As a long time tech and IT guy (over 15 years experience)...


Be careful when using those words as some sort of proof of your knowledge level because I have met many people with longer experience that were still oblivious to newer technology. Sometimes you cannot teach an old dog new tricks.

That being said, I have 11 years of IT experience from technical support to system administration. I found Vista to be troublesome/buggy at first but after SP1 it was pure bliss. I highly recommend it over using Windows XP. Of course I now highly recommend Windows 7 over both Windows XP and Vista.

Windows Vista was a stepping stone forced by the mistakes of Windows XP. It was never a piece of trash thrown together.


RE: numbers
By Yawgm0th on 11/5/2009 11:39:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
no because W7 is a completely rebuilt and brand new kernel, not just a rebuilt Vista kernel which was a major reason for the problems in Vista. They may number it close to Vista but this is more of a new OS than an update.
You couldn't be more wrong. Windows 7 has more in common with the Vista kernel than Server 2003 does with XP (on that note, more than XP x64 has in common with regular, 32-bit XP!). There are very minor kernel changes and very few low-level changes in general. It's honestly just a leaner, faster version of Vista with a slightly improved interface.


RE: numbers
By CurseTheSky on 11/6/2009 2:17:13 AM , Rating: 2
Please get your facts straight before posting.

1) Vista is / was the "major rebuild" and "brand new kernel," coming from Xp.

2) While there were some under-the-hood tweaks, Windows 7 primarily adds a number of features and a few changes here and there. Essentially, Windows 7 is more comparable to what Service Pack 2 did for Xp than it is to a full-blown operating system. Check the various change-logs all over the 'net.

3) I'm not a Microsoft "fanboi." Infact, if I had to pick a favorite company, it'd probably be Google (and even they're starting to get the Evil Empire feel).

4) As a matter of a fact, I AM a programmer. C++, Java, PHP, VB, AJAX, to name a few. I have a degree and I've been working in the field for about 5-7 years now.

5) Generally, it's the "coders/programmers" that are "smart" enough to say "oh no Vista is good." Is the non-tech-savvy, ill-informed "public" that generally jumps to conclusions about Vista being bad and Windows 7 being the savior, simply based on what they heard from their friend, spouse, the kid at Best Buy, etc. It sounds like you fit in the latter category.

Now, I don't want this to seem like a personal attack, but nearly everything in your post is simply incorrect. Please get your facts straight (a quick Google search is always helpful) before posting junk.


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki