backtop

Print 147 comment(s) - last by SlyNine.. on Feb 8 at 3:22 PM

Microsoft is all grins and cheers after posting record earnings, fueled by the fastest operating system sales in history (Windows 7).  (Source: Gearfuse)
Windows 7 marked a complete turn around for the company

A year ago Microsoft was struggling.  The world's largest software firm had built up a massive user base, but it was losing their respect.  Its current (at the time) operating system Windows Vista brought many innovations, but also frustrations that led to an icy public reception.  So Microsoft decided to do something unprecedented -- it would allow the public to try its latest version of Windows, and then take their advice and use it to produce something people could truly get excited about.

That gamble paid off handsomely and it reversed the fortunes of struggling Microsoft, returning it to dynamic growth.  Windows 7 launched in October of last year and proved a commercial smash.  All the Apple commercials in the world couldn't damper the public enthusiasm about the new operating systems.  And Microsoft stepped up its own populist ads featuring average Joes and Janes experiencing (or suggesting) the improvements, fueling further growth.

Now Microsoft's brand image is at a new high and Microsoft just reported its best quarter in its history.  Microsoft reports a net revenue of $19.02B USD, a 14 percent increase from the previous year.  Microsoft also reported operating income, net income and diluted earnings per share of $8.51B USD, $6.66B USD and $0.74 USD per share, up 43 percent, 60 percent and 57 percent, respectively from a year ago.  The revenue was boosted by $1.71B USD in deferred revenue on Windows 7 preorders, among other things.

The key factors in Microsoft's rejuvenation were Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2.  Since October 22, Microsoft sold 60 million Windows 7 licenses, the fastest sales pace of any operating system in Microsoft history -- or world history for that matter.

Peter Klein, chief financial officer at Microsoft comments, "Exceptional demand for Windows 7 led to the positive top-line growth for the company. Our continuing commitment to managing costs allowed us to drive earnings performance ahead of the revenue growth."

Kevin Turner, chief operating officer at Microsoft adds, "This is a record quarter for Windows units. We are thrilled by the consumer reception to Windows 7 and by business enthusiasm to adopt Windows 7."

Looking ahead Microsoft does have some key areas it needs to improve on.  Currently its phone offerings are in shambles (though a surprise early release of Windows Mobile 7 could change that) and its search business still trails Google, despite recent gains.  Still, Windows 7 has been such a huge hit, even if all of Microsoft's other units fail to post gains, the company will still be in pretty good shape.  Windows 7 has truly delivered Microsoft a comeback for the ages.

Microsoft stock opened slightly up this morning on the good news, opening at $29.89 a share, about 2 percent up.  Since it has slid slightly to about $29.29 a share.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Best Windows Ever?
By Mitch101 on 1/29/2010 10:11:25 AM , Rating: 2
I personally think Windows 7 is the best Windows ever.

My only complaint is that you cant install Virtual PC if you already have Virtual XP installed. Virtual XP doesnt have the interface for you to create other Virtual machines. So if you have a need to create other Virtual machines with VPC you have to uninstall Virtual XP then you can install Virtual PC. This gives you the Virtual PC gui. Of course I couldnt find a use for Virtual XP because so far Windows 7 runs all old stuff down to Starcraft so Im not sure what use Virtual XP has other than maybe corporate for running an older app version so you can guide a client through something. Now I know I could have used Virtual Box or VMWare to keep my Virtual XP but I like being able to download a VPC from Microsoft to check out stuff like Sharepoint 2010, Exchange 2007/2010, Server 2008 R2, etc without having to do an OS install and app install.




RE: Best Windows Ever?
By Aloonatic on 1/29/2010 10:15:06 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I personally think Windows 7 is the best Windows ever.
Well, as the latest version it should be really, shouldn't it?


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By Aloonatic on 1/29/2010 10:48:21 AM , Rating: 1
Really, it shouldn't be?


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By chagrinnin on 1/29/2010 1:24:22 PM , Rating: 2
heh heh,...shoulded you'self. :P


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By CENGJINYIWEI on 1/31/10, Rating: -1
RE: Best Windows Ever?
By Taft12 on 1/29/2010 11:21:05 AM , Rating: 2
Not for MS. Vista and Windows ME disprove the newest = best concept


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By Aloonatic on 1/29/2010 11:28:21 AM , Rating: 3
That they might not have been has little to do with whether they should have been the best though, does it?


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By reader1 on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Best Windows Ever?
By jonmcc33 on 1/29/2010 12:55:38 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, Windows ME was a step back from Windows 98SE in regards to stability.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By Abrahmm on 1/29/2010 1:43:45 PM , Rating: 5
Yep, the OS that is incapable of multi-tasking, a capability standard in operating systems decades ago, is the biggest advancement in OS technology.

Ironically, the biggest advancement in Mac OS was when they stopped using their own code and started using BSD's.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By HEIJIHUHU on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Best Windows Ever?
By rtk on 1/29/2010 1:59:41 PM , Rating: 2
An app store is not an OS technology development, it's an ecosystem development.

The iPhone OS is not an "advanced" OS.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By Belard on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Best Windows Ever?
By PrezWeezy on 1/29/2010 8:46:20 PM , Rating: 3
The majority of people who "hate" vista are people who never used it. Go look at the actual tests on speed; guess what, 7 is still slower than XP at a lot of tasks. Vista is slower yes, but do I care if a large file copy takes 2-4 seconds longer? And what "memory" problems? The biggest memory issues I have with Vista are when I use Chrome. I used to have to reboot my XP machine once a week before some sort of leak would make the thing unusable. Now, if I reboot my Vista once a month I'm babying it. Granted, if you have a P4 with built in video running on 1GB RAM, it's not going to run well. I'll give you that. But a PII running with 64 MB RAM didn't exactly run XP well either. I haven't seen any speed increase in actual use when I put x64 7 Ultimate on my box vs. the Vista x64 Ultimate I had previously.

Vista is not crap. It works perfectly fine, and I have yet to have a SINGLE user get a piece of malware on Vista when UAC is turned on. I have to clean off the stupid Fake AV all the time on our XP machines. XP was great in its day, Vista worked just fine when it was the latest, and 7 works really well right now. But the trick is to never upgrade. Upgrades tend to be worthless and a waste of time. If you have to upgrade, go buy a new computer with modern hardware and don't try to make something that was designed in 2007 run on hardware that was made in 2003.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By Aloonatic on 1/30/2010 3:22:37 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The majority of people who "hate" vista are people who never used it.
While that may be true, there are a lot of people who don't like Vista or don't think that it's amazing who have used it too. Sadly you just bunch those peoples comments in with the "don't know what they're talking about, try Mojave you'll love it, you're an idiot who doesn't know what you're talking about the problems between the keyboard and the chair..." group, but Vista was and is not really all that great. Not bad, but not great either. Worth investing £100 in? Well, it has pretty quickly turned out to be no. All those people who ignored it have been rewarded with Win 7. Those who didn't have paid £100 for Vista, and then £100 for Win 7 a couple of years later. Can you see why they might be miffed when they used XP for years?
quote:
Vista is not crap. It works perfectly fine...
There simply were a lot of problems with Vista, very basic problems too with files not copying/moving properly, printers not working on networks and yes, UAC was really annoying for many. People weren't educated about the reasons why MS implemented it, which they should have done. I don;t think it's a bad thing, and most of the problems come from the lack of knowledge about it, and I have lost count of the times that I have called tech support for some of the software that we use only to be told to log in as an admin, and when I say there's no such thing in Vista like there was in XP, many don't even know about "run as admin". Not MS's fault, but this is still going on and perhaps more could have been done by MS to sort this out?
quote:
..., and I have yet to have a SINGLE user get a piece of malware on Vista when UAC is turned on.
Well, you've not met my boss, who's a master in the fine art of getting viruses/malware on machines and probably should be employed by MS as he's a magnet for these things. He''s so bad with security that he could get a virus on a wind up wrist watch, and he's not unique.

I think that many here live in the large IT department tech bubble and maybe are even lucky enough to have largely tech literate friends and family, but there are many many people and companies out there who have experienced Vista in a very different environment and there really have been a lot of problems, and snide comments (not saying that you've made them, but others have) about it's the moron in front of the screen don't change the facts that Vista has not been as good as it was hyped up to be, or should have been frankly, after XP had been about for so long.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By Aloonatic on 1/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: Best Windows Ever?
By jkostans on 1/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: Best Windows Ever?
By Belard on 1/31/2010 3:31:06 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Granted they aren't power users, but when vista is properly installed, updated, and free of hardware/driver issues it runs extremely well.


Gee.. that is pretty much ANY OS... proper. But Vista will never be fixed, no need. MS replaced it with Win7.

Vista will always be a memory hog due to its DESIGN FLAWS. Check this one page about the memory issues (part of the problem) and this info was known for years.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/2d-windows-gdi...


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By SlyNine on 2/1/2010 8:47:43 AM , Rating: 3
No need to fix something that isn't broken. You call it a design flaw which is funny. There is nothing flawed about it. It's just not made with your flawed values in mind.

But most of your claims are made with the idea its supposed to run on antiquated hardware. When in fact we all know Vista needs at least 2-4 gigs of ram, which is relatively cheap. So get over yourself.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By Belard on 2/1/2010 11:38:25 PM , Rating: 2
Er, hey do you know how a mouse works on a weblink? You click on an underlink word(s) and it goes to another webpage.

You called my clams flawed, yet you don't look at the data. It explains the memory issues, which was one part of vistas issues. I believe Anandtech or Toms has a whole article on the many areas in which MS changed in Win7 over Vista to improve drive space, memory and CPU resources.

The memory issue of Vista is "REAL". Go to bestbuy.com and look up the cheap $325+ computers with Vista (in the past) and they came with 3GB. Wonder how that happened?

A typical clean Win7 install has about half as many processes as vista.

I didn't say or do I recommend that Windows7 be used on OLD OLD hardware, just testing it out. You said it yourself
quote:
When in fact we all know Vista needs at least 2-4 gigs of ram, which is relatively cheap. So get over yourself.


Er... and yet the same computer with 1~2GB of RAM and Windows7 would be faster at booting, shutting down, opening apps and other OS operations. gee, they sell $600+ PCs with 8GB of RAM because of vista. But yeah, people are used to the idea of using lots of RAM.

The price of RAM has gone up. 6+ months ago, 4GB DDR2 was about $30~60. Now its $90~150 like DDR3.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By SlyNine on 2/8/2010 3:22:16 PM , Rating: 2
Really, because I was on a skype call, all custom built computers, all windows 7 expect mine being Vista ultimate and yet I rebooted quicker then all of there's.

My specs are a Q6600 @3ghz and my HD is a 1.5TB Seagate, my OS install is about 1 year old.

The other was a 1TB WD w/ athlon 2 X4. Hmmm. How did I manage to boot faster.

Obviously this issue with memory is blown out of proportion, as I have many many windows open, and IE windows open at a time with no problems.

My Laptop with a Core I7 720 6gig of ram and windows 7 doesn't feel any faster either.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By PrezWeezy on 2/1/2010 2:17:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But Vista will never be fixed, no need. MS replaced it with Win7.


Yes, because I'm sure if Vista had been a bigger hit, MS was planning on retiring their OS team.

What a stupid comment, OF COURSE they replaced it. Guess what, I hear they plan to replace Win 7 in two years too.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By Totally on 2/1/2010 5:48:26 AM , Rating: 2
Well, you are being rated down for faulting the OS for User Error. Your tone is against but the cases you are providing are very strong in-favor examples. It's like blaming auto makers when your car gets stolen when you leave your car in the bad area of town with the keys in the ignition.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By Aloonatic on 2/1/2010 5:23:37 PM , Rating: 2
I am clearly sighting errors that have nothing to do with user error, if you were to actually bother to read what I have written. What you have just done though is demonstrated the other point that I have been making too, which is that you all just assume people who fault Vista are idiots who don't know what they are talking about, or are too poor to buy cool new hardware or whatever, MS could never ever be at fault, no matter what anyone says.

Vista has had problems with simple file copying and moving, problems with compressing, problems with networking, lots of simple problems which were not resolved until service pack 2, not even service pack 1. Non technical faults were made as well, like the poor explanation of what UAC was, and changing the control panel and how network discovery works, which just confused people.

I'm not talking about people running out of memory, not turning UAC off because it's annoying and getting a virus from opening a bad link from an e-mail (though I have seen people manage to do this with UAC on) or anything like that.

So your now obligatory car analogy is wrong, sorry dude. Try again.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By damianrobertjones on 1/30/2010 5:52:08 AM , Rating: 1
I laugh when people say, "Vista at idle is using 2.3Gb of ram?"

Umm... that's by design. If it's there, it should use the damn memory or disable the service.

:)


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By Belard on 1/31/2010 3:34:34 AM , Rating: 2
There are good ways and wrong ways of going about it.

Win7 does a better job of displaying that information. Also, unlike vista - Win7 doesn't eat memory from usual uses.

Vista has DESIGN FLAWS. Check this one page about the memory issues (part of the problem) and this info was known for years.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/2d-windows-gdi...

Also, during startup - Win7 does it better with what is loaded... unlike XP and Vista which tries to load up everything at one time (basically).

So what takes vista 2-3 minutes to boot, a Win7 could do it in 30seconds. Oh well.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By Belard on 1/31/2010 3:21:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The majority of people who "hate" vista are people who never used it.


And people like you say the same thing over and over again. Vista patched, cleaned and all that... still run like crapola. Used various Vista configs.. suck suck suck.

Worked for you, cool. Work for others, useless.

If Vista was so good, then I'd be bitching about Win7 just the same.

quote:
Granted, if you have a P4 with built in video running on 1GB RAM, it's not going to run well.


Yeah, my 1GB Thinkpad with a slower PentiumDC running Win7 is easily faster and does things better than a NEW Vista notebook I worked on that had 3GB. Really impressive.

I've installed Win7 on a 512mb / AMD XP 2000 and it ran pretty good still... better than a vista box with more stats.

quote:
Vista is not crap. It works perfectly fine,


Good for you.

quote:
I have yet to have a SINGLE user get a piece of malware on Vista when UAC is turned on. I have to clean off the stupid Fake AV all the time on our XP machines.


LOL... that tells us a lot about you and your computers. :) Funny, I don't get such junk on my XP boxes either. User Error is still user error.

BTW, UAC on vista is retarded... clicking OKAY/Permit whatever twice just to rename a desktop icon or to access display properties? Plain retarded.

Business users and networks are not home users and don't have time to play with games such as OS issues that vista caused. Hence, many Vista installations were side-graded to XP.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By SlyNine on 2/1/2010 9:15:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, my 1GB Thinkpad with a slower PentiumDC running Win7 is easily faster and does things better than a NEW Vista notebook I worked on that had 3GB. Really impressive.


Good for you, and I've seen Vista run better then a windows 7 computer with better stats, This says nothing about the merits of the OS, but rather a lot about all the junk that was installed.

Yes, Windows 7 handles low memory situations better. Yes windows 7 is a better OS.

But your flaw continues to be debating people on the false pretense. You are acting like people are saying Vista is better then 7. Personally I like Vista's GUI better but that is simply subjective, the insides of 7 are very similar to Vista with some improvement and modification.

Anyone that used UAC correctly, and doesn't just approve everything that pops up on the screen shouldn't have any problems.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By PrezWeezy on 2/1/2010 2:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
I have a very vast pool of computers to pull from. My users get fake AV all the time on their XP boxes. I probably clean one a month from someone who clicked "yes scan my computer" and installed it. On Vista, they see the UAC and think twice about it. So while I personally have never had malware on any of my PC's, including my old XP box, my clients have. And my parents have.

I have a question for you, why the hell do I care if my AMD XP 2000 with 512MB RAM runs Win 7? I don't. I don't care of my PIII runs Win 7 either. Upgrades are a waste of time. When you are ready to buy a new OS, but a new computer to run it the RIGHT way. Home users can't deal with trying to get drivers right, or get their software re-installed when it's no longer supported. If I want Win 7, instead of spending $200 to buy it, I'll spend $300-$400 on a new Dell and it will run far better.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By Belard on 2/1/2010 11:28:49 PM , Rating: 1
I wouldn't recommend that anyone should use Windows7, much less XP on a Pentium 3 system with 512mb or 1GB of RAM.

The point was a performance / memory usage test of an operating system. The ability to run Win7 on old crap hardware that is sometimes better than Vista on a spankin new computer.

Sorry you can deal with the simple fact that out of the gate, vista had problems on NEW computers that customers bought. It crapped all over itself.

I'm not the only one. The sales figures that MS gets shows it true. If Windows7 was just a different coat of paint ontop of Vista, it would be the same ole shit. Personally, I wasn't expecting much of Windows7.

I think you may have issues of not being able to upgrade.
:)


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By PrezWeezy on 2/3/2010 5:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
Having used it for a year in Beta and then a full release since, I can tell you it works perfectly. I never had a problem except with a driver for my TV Tuner. Sure I had the problem everyone talked about, a printer didn't work for one of my clients. She was using the XP install disk for the driver though.

As far as memory usage, personally, it pisses me off when there is free memory. I think it should be using 100% of the memory available to it. That's why I paid to put it in there. If I wanted it to run on less memory I wouldn't have put 4 GB in.

Again, you say it was a performance test of the OS. Well all of the blogs I have read say that the difference is measured in single digits. 2-4 seconds difference on most performance markers. Is it slower? Sure. Does it hurt me if it takes a few seconds longer to boot up? Not really. Once it's running it runs just as well.

http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=36...
Looks to me like Vista does just fine compared to both XP and 7.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By Belard on 2/3/2010 11:26:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As far as memory usage, personally, it pisses me off when there is free memory. I think it should be using 100% of the memory available to it. That's why I paid to put it in there. If I wanted it to run on less memory I wouldn't have put 4 GB in.


Why should it?

How about... it should piss you off that a "newer" OS requires 3~4 times the memory of the previous OS to equal the same performance for everyday work. yeah, because my XP box is soooo struggling with 2GB, oh yeah - it rarely goes below 1.2GB of usuage.

Win7 still pre-loads some of your apps, it does a better job of it than vista, rather than making the end-user wait another 1~3 minutes for the OS to finish loading up.

More resources means more work and the computer has to do.

The benchmarking of a running APP is going to be about the same across the board... but loading the app, clicking on the menu, clicking "access or deny", waiting for something to happen, looking at pretty icons of "calculating time" to copy files, INSTEAD of actually doing it is plain fracking stupid.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By PrezWeezy on 2/4/2010 1:07:17 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I needed at least 256-512 MB to have a good XP experience, when my win 2000 ran the same on 64 MB as it did on 128 MB. Seems like my "newer" OS needing 3-4 times is rather normal.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By mxnerd on 1/31/2010 8:14:20 PM , Rating: 2
Vista is crap if your computer is slower than 2GHz, has only one core and has less than 2GB memory.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By damianrobertjones on 1/30/2010 5:50:30 AM , Rating: 2
People like pretty and without pretty, Win7 would be BASHED to hell by WinXP and OSX owners alike. Can't win either way if you're MS


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By Belard on 1/31/10, Rating: 0
RE: Best Windows Ever?
By SlyNine on 2/1/2010 8:42:56 AM , Rating: 2
The only truth is that you are full of crap and haven't provided anything to back up your claims.

Vista works fine for me. Most people that use my computer cannot believe how snappy it is. I've bested many peoples boot times with this XP and 7. I leave it running 24/7 for months and it doesn't have a problem or slow down over time. I like the more traditional windows look and feel.

Your problem is, you're eating in to the popular opinion. You think you're correct because what you believe happens to be shared by more people. lol well don't fall off the edge of the world smart guy.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By Belard on 2/1/2010 11:18:03 PM , Rating: 1
Vista fan-boyz are crybabies.

Millions of people didn't like vista, so... they complained. MS themselves admit they HAD screwed up.

Hell, they even advertise it!


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By damianrobertjones on 1/30/2010 5:48:54 AM , Rating: 2
You see, I simply do not understand why or how you arrive at the comments that you post? I'm thinking that you're oblivious to the comments below yours or you're enjoying it?

In daily normal life, all versions of Windows, yes, even ME did what they did and although 'ME', especially, proved to be quite unstable, it still allowed people to surf the web, create documents, modify pictures etc. We move forward and now we have Windows 7 which, possibly, is the most stable OS they've made and MS has been in this business a long time.

Pick the right spec and Windows 7 becomes the bridge to everything creative above, as well as accelerated cad, DTP, music production and a whole meriad of other options.

Windows does all of this with ease and I see this each day as I walk into work and administer many, many pcs. At no point during the last eight+ years have I ever even remotely thought, "Windows is terrible, we'd better move to something else".

This post has been written on a Q9650, 8Gb ram, 9800 GX2 machine that has worked from the day I built it right up until now and beyond. It simply works and does anything and everything I ask of it. Please, Reader1, go outside and get a life, have some damn fun and maybe, MAYBE, post while thinking


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By reader1 on 1/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Best Windows Ever?
By atlmann10 on 1/31/2010 3:16:58 AM , Rating: 2
What I wanna know is this reader1 will the iPhone kill the iPad in market share or will the iPad kill the iPhone in market share. Oh and your Brain is the model for a closed system. It refuses to consider anything that does not have to do with Apple or anyone for that matter killing the evil Microsoft monopoly monster! Oh by the way closed systems have been around since before the Commodore 64, long before. They exist to a great percentage in the market, but have never at any time threatened to over take it.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By retrospooty on 1/30/2010 6:34:24 PM , Rating: 3
"The only significant advancement in OS technology in the past 15 years, has been the iPhone OS."


LOL... Its funny how totally clueless some people are. Thanks for the laugh though. You are truly dead from the neck up =)


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By piroroadkill on 2/1/2010 7:55:24 AM , Rating: 1
Vista was bloated, but yes, most of the initial issues were driver vendors being useless.

Millenium Edition, however, was a godawful rehash of 98 and has no good qualities


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By The0ne on 1/29/2010 10:20:24 AM , Rating: 2
VirtualXP is slow though. Why would you not want to use Virtual Box or VMWare? It's slow on my Q6600@3.33GHz. Whereas if you run VMWare you are more "features". Do you save your VM's?


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By nafhan on 1/29/2010 10:25:31 AM , Rating: 2
I've had better luck with USB devices on Virtual PC compared to Virtual Box. Haven't had speed issues with either. I do prefer Virtual Box, though.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By The0ne on 1/29/2010 11:09:14 AM , Rating: 2
Year VirtualBox isn't as streamline and/or well integrated. I always have to fuss with something to get it working right. I use VMWare personally and haven't found any critical issues with my daily use yet. Devices work find and it's quick on my laptop :)


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By Mitch101 on 1/29/2010 12:01:01 PM , Rating: 1
I use Virtual Box to run Linux Distros on a windows box. Never had much luck getting Linux working in VPC. Its free and works fine for linux that's all I care about.

VM Ware I use when its going to be something on a corporate lan.

Not too concerned over speed because Im really the only user on my VM environments.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By Motley on 1/29/2010 11:24:34 AM , Rating: 2
I think I've used all the major VMs, and of them, Virtual Box is by far the worst of them. I will give VMWare the edge, because of it's more advanced features (virtual 3D, typically higher virtual Cores, better support for non-Microsoft OS's), but for the average person, or the guy who just wants to fire up a copy of Windows XP because updated drivers aren't available for some super legacy piece of hardware, they won't notice the difference, and Virtual PC/XP integrates better and causes less side issues with the host OS.

VMWare has caused issues with Plug and Play USB devices in my host OS. All of a sudden the host wouldn't recognize them because VMWare puts a USB shim in so they can redirect it to a particular VM. I've had networking issues where advanced software on the host will not work correctly without a lot of tweeking (Custom VPNs, virtual networks, etc). And of course, VMWare does not support a virtual shared SCSI bus between VMs, which is really useful for cluster testing.

For the average Joe, speed differences between the different VMs is quite unnoticable. It may matter if you are trying to run 8 VMs on a server unattended, but not for the average user trying run one.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By The0ne on 1/29/2010 12:16:20 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe I should give VirtualXP a try again. Sounds like you guys are making it seem acceptable for use. It was very sluggish for me during the 7100 testing. General tasks, such as mouse movements, were just sluggish. It annoyed the heck out of me.

Some of the newer updates to VM helps with the integration for a lot of the USB devices. What version are you using?

For advance uses, of course VM will have problems. But for general usage is typically good unlike VirtualBox. But I do agree, if you don't want to spend more money and just like to be able to run xp apps, print and stuff it should be fine.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By jonmcc33 on 1/29/2010 12:32:19 PM , Rating: 3
VirtualBox has 3D support, up to 32 cores per VM and supports every Windows OS and practically every Linus OS as well. When was the last time you used VirtualBox?


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By The0ne on 1/29/2010 12:45:51 PM , Rating: 2
3D support is limited in all the VMs and I am positive VMWare has a wider 3D support than VirtualBox. I like VirtualBox but I HAVE to fiddle around to get installations working whether that be Ubuntu, Fedora, XP or Win7. After a while you just have to stand back and ask yourself if this is even worth your time when you really can just do it very simple in VMWare. Maybe it's my hardware, shrug...even if it's this or that the point is that VMWare doesn't even struggle one bit at any point (in my case).

Due to this discussion, I'm already planning to set aside time this weekend to "play" with VirtualBox and VirtualPC again :) Can't wait hehe


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By jonmcc33 on 1/29/2010 3:50:32 PM , Rating: 2
I've never had to fiddle with any installs to get them working. Ubuntu, OpenSUSE, Fedora, Windows XP and Windows 7 have all installed without a problem on VirutalBox.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By SublimeSimplicity on 1/29/2010 10:20:59 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I personally think Windows 7 is the best Windows ever.


Thanks, windows 7 was my idea.

True story.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By reader1 on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Best Windows Ever?
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 12:32:42 PM , Rating: 4
OMG, I (partially) agree with a Reader1 post.

Does this mean I need therapy?


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By ClownPuncher on 1/29/2010 2:06:08 PM , Rating: 4
Aroma-therapy. Does this rag smell like chloroform?

*Microsoft SS drags you off to an undisclosed location.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By zsdersw on 1/29/2010 1:22:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Steve Jobs, and Apple, don't rely on consumer feedback because they're innovators.


So you're an Apple worshipper and fanatic, huh? Tell me, what's it like to be completely stupid?


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By AstroCreep on 1/29/2010 6:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you're an Apple worshipper and fanatic, huh? Tell me, what's it like to be completely stupid?


Or you could ask how the Kool-Aid tastes.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By damianrobertjones on 1/29/2010 2:06:13 PM , Rating: 2
No, instead they rely on negative advertisements bashing pcs. You're not 'cool' if you don't use mac products.

They've caught the attention of the kids and kids are falling head over foot to get at the iPhone/iPod. At this point as they grow, they 'might' realise that apple screws them every chance they can get, be it cables or updates.

By that time, something else will have come along, they'll jump and suddenly get quite annoyed as they have to re-rip all of their music to play.

Apple = 'attract the shiny loving people'


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By porkpie on 1/31/2010 1:58:30 PM , Rating: 2
"as they grow, they 'might' realise that apple screws them every chance they can get, be it cables or updates."

You were going good, right up until you said this. Apple products-- like any other heavily-advertised product in the world-- cost more than their competition. Ad's aren't free.

You can certainly debate whether or not they're worth the price premium, but nonsense about Apple "screwing" their customers is just that.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By themaster08 on 1/29/2010 2:36:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Steve Jobs, and Apple, don't rely on consumer feedback because they're self-righteous assholes.

That's much better.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By Helbore on 1/29/2010 5:58:13 PM , Rating: 2
How can you criticise a company for asking its customers what they want and then giving them what they asked for?

All companies should do this, instead of telling their customers they don't know what they want, when they ask for the company to add a feature (not naming any companies in particular here).


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By PrezWeezy on 1/29/2010 8:50:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Steve Jobs, and Apple, don't rely on consumer feedback because they're innovators


Don't rely on; don't care about; don't listen to; don't take seriously; yeah, all pretty much the same.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By damianrobertjones on 1/30/2010 5:56:09 AM , Rating: 2
The iPad is living proof that apple ONLY want to do what THEY want to do.

It'll still sell and my faith in the human race will face that extra little bit :(


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By piroroadkill on 2/1/2010 7:56:47 AM , Rating: 2
Steve Jobs doesn't listen to his whiny consumers, he KNOWS WHAT'S RIGHT FOR YOU


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By thekdub on 2/1/2010 10:43:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Steve Jobs, and Apple, don't rely on consumer feedback

Hence the fact that they are still shipping iMacs with defective screens, and seemingly not doing anything to remedy the problem, even though it's all over the 'net.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By ChrisHF on 1/29/2010 10:43:07 AM , Rating: 2
The instructions that I followed (from a Microsoft page) said to install Virtual PC and then install Virtual XP. It made it sound like Virtual PC was a prerequisite for Virtual XP. This was only a few weeks ago, so things may have changed since your experience.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By Mitch101 on 1/29/2010 11:51:35 AM , Rating: 1
This was in the past week I should have mentioned 2007

If you install VirtualPC/VirtualXP you cant install Virtual PC 2007.

VirtualPC/VirtualXP doesnt seem to have the VPC interface.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By OCedHrt on 1/29/2010 1:27:51 PM , Rating: 2
Why would you want to install Virtual PC 2007?


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By Mitch101 on 1/29/2010 1:58:42 PM , Rating: 1
Mainly to have more control over the VM's and run VHD's. I like the simple interface of Virtual PC 2007. I would run Hyper-V if it ran on Windows 7 but VPC2007 does the job.

Downloadable pre-configured VHD's
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/bb738372.aspx

I also have a 2008 server running Hyper-V but that machine is maxed out with Virtual Machines. Between my two PC's I can run 8 VM's comfortably with room to spare.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By nichow on 1/29/2010 2:10:37 PM , Rating: 2
Actually XP mode in Windows 7 is using the next version of Virtual PC. You can create new VMs, if you go to your "Virtual Machines" folder usually located at "%SystemDrive%\Users\<UserName>\Virtual Machines", there is a button labeled "Create virtual machine." It's easy to miss cause it blends in, but it's right next to the "New Folder" button.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By Mitch101 on 1/29/2010 2:24:37 PM , Rating: 1
I guess I missed that. Great post. That one sentence is more information about VPC of Win7 than on Microsoft's website. They just dont explain using VPC/7 at all with other virtual machines.

I would like to use it because of the USB and Drive sharing on VPC but so far VPC2007 has been fine for now. Plus all my VM's are on D but Im sure I could change that VM directory somewhere like the registry.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By nichow on 1/29/2010 2:49:23 PM , Rating: 2
You can actually store the VHDs anywere you want. To move them from to the new VPC you can just create a new VM via the new UI and tell it to use an existing VHD and point it to where ever you stored your VHD's.

If you installed the VPC7 integration components in the VM you'll want to uninstall them before booting them with the new VPC. Also it's a pretty good idea to just copy the VHD to somewhere new in case the transition doesn't go smoothly (it should but just in case a good backup is always nice) If you are using undo disks, you'll want to disable them first before copying the VHD somewhere else.

Once you boot the vhd in the new VPC you can install the new integration components where supported.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By The0ne on 1/29/2010 3:07:53 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, this was covered in those free win7 giveaway marketing/training things :) Some of those people SHOULD NOT be admins :o


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By reader1 on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Best Windows Ever?
By Aloonatic on 1/29/2010 11:07:13 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
IE8 is the best version of IE ever, but it's still garbage. Windows 7 is the best Windows ever, but it's still garbage, also.
That was reader1's best comment ever, and it was....


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By jonmcc33 on 1/29/2010 12:33:34 PM , Rating: 2
The tool is back! LOL!


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By geddarkstorm on 1/29/2010 4:01:22 PM , Rating: 3
He's done it, he's finally done it. He's hit a negative global score of -0.03. This man is an artist my friends, a true artist.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By themaster08 on 2/1/2010 10:27:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Windows 7 is the best Windows ever, but it's still garbage, also.

I'd rather make my own "garbage" than pawn off someone else's (BSD's) hard work.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By OCedHrt on 1/29/2010 11:32:59 AM , Rating: 2
I do not believe that is correct about Virtual PC. There is Virtual PC 2007, which is not supported on Windows 7, and Windows Virtual PC, which is new to Windows 7.

The latter can be installed with Virtual XP, and actually is a pre-requisite for Virtual XP. You can create virtual machines directly in explorer by simply going to the Virtual Machines folder under your user folder.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By Mitch101 on 1/29/2010 11:53:39 AM , Rating: 2
Virtual PC 2007 works on Windows 7 and Vista.

You are correct I should have stated Virtual 2007 and Virtual PC/Virtual XP.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By OCedHrt on 1/29/2010 1:26:50 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, Virtual PC 2007 works on Windows 7, but not officially. And no, you do not need Virtual PC 2007 to create VMs. Windows Virtual PC (for Windows 7) can create VMs.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By Mitch101 on 1/29/2010 2:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
I couldn't find anywhere to control the settings of a VHD on VPC for Windows 7. It feels like a light version of VPC2007 with limited control and purely focused on XP compatibility more than anything else. I did the Virtual network driver hack but still didn't like it.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By ajoyner777 on 1/29/2010 8:06:05 PM , Rating: 3
I had no problem adding other virtual machines. The wizard is integrated into Explorer. All you have to do is click on "Create Virtual Machine".


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By FaceMaster on 1/30/2010 11:47:09 AM , Rating: 2
I've tried both Vista and Windows 7, but I prefer XP simply because I know it far better than the other OSes and because of that I've mastered it. I don't need DX 10 or 11. Fruity Loops runs far slower in later OSes, compatibility for the programs I'm used to decreases in Vista and Windows 7.

Upgrading for me simply takes away everything I'm used to, and forces me to start again with new programs that may or may not be better.

I'll probably upgrade eventually, but at the moment I see no need. XP does everything I want it to beautifully.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By Schadenfroh on 1/31/2010 10:48:21 AM , Rating: 2
Windows 2000 is the best Windows ever.


RE: Best Windows Ever?
By esSJae on 1/31/2010 7:07:14 PM , Rating: 2
You can create VMs with Windows VPC...go to: C:\%username%\virtual machines or click "Windows Virtual PC" from the Start menu, see the little "Create virtual machine" menu option?

VMWare lets you use VHDs.

Windows VPC won't run Server 2008 R2, Exchange 2k7/2010 as it doesn't run 64bit OSes, you need Hyper-V do to that.


Nice
By mattspeer01 on 1/29/2010 10:26:13 AM , Rating: 5
I installed 64-bit Windows 7 on my desktop and laptop a few days after it was released (replaced Vista on both). So far I have been pleased with it...no crashes or blue screens of death, all my peripherals work well, and it is significantly faster than Vista.

Yet another reason why I can't fathom anyone buying a Mac. I guess the only reasons to buy a Mac are as follows:

1)You enjoy being a trendy geek and paying more money for less performance.

2)You are a complete moron when it comes to using computers and want a computer that treats the user like an idiot.

3)You think that arrogant prick, Steve Jobs, actually knows what he's doing.




RE: Nice
By djcameron on 1/29/2010 11:23:11 AM , Rating: 5
I now only use Windows 7 on my MacBook. I haven't been on my OS-X partition in quite a long time.


RE: Nice
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 11:40:10 AM , Rating: 2
"You think that arrogant prick, Steve Jobs, actually knows what he's doing"

On a personal level, I find Jobs about as disgusting as possible (I actually met him once). That aside, since regaining control of Apple from Scully, Jobs turned a company on the brink of bankruptcy into one of the hottest corporations in the world, posting record profits even in a down economy. He's also a self-made billionaire, btw.

So yes, I think Jobs "knows what he's doing".


RE: Nice
By EasyC on 1/29/2010 12:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
Jobs is a good salesman, nothing more. He's no "visionary". He's no "leader". He's experienced at marketing.


RE: Nice
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 12:35:07 PM , Rating: 3
Funny, Apple reenvisioned both the MP3 player and the cell phone. Meanwhile the rest of the world followed their lead(ership) in both respective industries.

Either Jobs is a visionary leader, or he's good at hiring people who are. Whichever one, he still seems to "know what he's doing".


RE: Nice
By jonmcc33 on 1/29/2010 12:37:16 PM , Rating: 2
Steve Jobs didn't do that. Napster did that. Napster started the music P2P download phenomenon and Apple followed up with it's legal means called iTunes. iTunes saved Apple. It wasn't the Mac by any means.

Given the failure and high price of the iPad, I don't think that Jobs "knows what he's doing."


RE: Nice
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 12:50:59 PM , Rating: 2
You just don't get it. Napster and anyone else offering music downloads is struggling to stay afloat, while Jobs is raking in billions in profits. You don't get that way by just following someone else's lead. If it was that easy, everyone would be doing it.

BTW, less than 10% of Apples profits come from iTunes. The Mac and the iPhone are the big profit leaders at present:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/technology/compa...


RE: Nice
By nafhan on 1/29/2010 2:44:43 PM , Rating: 2
The original Napster was the driving force behind the transition to downloadable music and the precursor to Kazaa, Limewire, and Bittorrent. The only similarity with today's Napster is the name. I think Amazon is doing OK in the music download business by offering what people want.
Also, iTunes isn't the direct core of Apple's profits, but it's definitely the core of their current business model.


RE: Nice
By jonmcc33 on 1/29/2010 4:35:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Napster and anyone else offering music downloads is struggling to stay afloat, while Jobs is raking in billions in profits. You don't get that way by just following someone else's lead.


June 1999 - Napster launches, made music available illegally for download for free via P2P technology
January 2001 - iTunes launches, made music available legally for fee

How in the hell did Jobs not follow someone elses lead? They didn't invent online music distribution! At it's peak, Napster had over 26 million users. Apple saw that and saw dollar signs!

It was iTunes with the iPod that gave Apple real face in the market.


RE: Nice
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 11:36:10 PM , Rating: 3
"How in the hell did Jobs not follow someone elses lead?"

You explained it yourself. Apple saw a way to turn an illegal, profitless operation into a highly profitable, as well as legal, operation. The original Napster was a temporary blip, long since gone. Apple is the one that created the online music industry.

Many other companies (including Napster itself) have tried to follow APPLE'S lead and make money from online music. They've failed.


RE: Nice
By BruceLeet on 1/29/2010 12:19:25 PM , Rating: 2
I have gotten a some blue screens, they were memory errors.


RE: Nice
By putergeek00 on 1/29/2010 3:10:32 PM , Rating: 2
You can't blame Microsoft for everything.. Hardware malfunctions don't count..

It's not Microsoft's fault your memory went bad. Hey, at least the Blue Screen told you what was wrong.

I remember when things would crash and you had to test every component one by one till you found the culprit. :P


RE: Nice
By themaster08 on 1/29/2010 3:36:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I remember when things would crash and you had to test every component one by one till you found the culprit. :P

Good times :P


RE: Nice
By jonmcc33 on 1/29/2010 4:37:51 PM , Rating: 3
Most people mistake memory errors for driver errors. nVIDIA is at fault for most BSODs with their cruddy drivers.


RE: Nice
By BruceLeet on 2/4/2010 3:05:29 PM , Rating: 2
I have ATI

AFAIK Code executes code, therefore the code written was written poorly, the code is written to be read by the hardware.

My RAM is fine, it was that one instance of bad code that told my RAM to GTFO.


RE: Nice
By Roffles on 1/29/2010 3:53:31 PM , Rating: 2
Spoken like a poet :D

I know macheads and I've never been able to make them look at PC's from my perspective. My only logical conclusion is because the closed nature of Apple hardware and software has limited the average Mac geeks need to be educated in hardware and software on the same level as the average PC geek.

The idea of customized and personally configured hardware and software is completely foreign...and the idea of challenging yourself with the inevitable tweaking and troubleshooting is completely out of this world. Thus they cannot understand the PC perspective.

It's not that they are being thick headed, they just don't see it.


RE: Nice
By themaster08 on 1/30/2010 12:20:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My only logical conclusion is because the closed nature of Apple hardware and software has limited the average Mac geeks need to be educated in hardware and software on the same level as the average PC geek.

Precisely.

Closed hardware = closed minds.


Say what you want about
By Sahrin on 1/29/2010 10:05:42 AM , Rating: 4
Steve Ballmer's antics - given the choice between hanging out with Stever Jobs and hanging out with Ballmer, I'd choose Ballmer anyday. He seems like a guy who knows how to have a good time.

Plus, you don't have to wash your hands and feet before you enter the room he's in.




RE: Say what you want about
By Samus on 1/29/2010 10:35:28 AM , Rating: 5
I agree. Steve Ballmer is definately a "Vegas, hookers and powder-on-mirror kind of guy!"


Aack ...
By Supa on 1/29/2010 10:28:25 AM , Rating: 2
What's with Steve and his tongue look? Or the photographers just love catching him with it?

Is he laughing, making a face, imitating Jordan? It's not exactly easy on the eyes.

---




RE: Aack ...
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 1/29/2010 11:37:24 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I am sorry to think I am putting food in that mouth.

Interestingly, tongue tipping is a tell that someone thinks they got something over on you. It virtually killed McCain's campaign near the end.


RE: Aack ...
By chagrinnin on 1/29/2010 1:37:01 PM , Rating: 2
Hooker: "If you make that face,...it's gonna cost extra." :P


Deserve it
By CColtManM on 1/29/2010 10:04:36 AM , Rating: 3
Windows 7 is a solid OS and worthy of the excitment and praise. Good for Microsoft for working out a polished piece of software!




RE: Deserve it
By Samus on 1/29/2010 10:32:29 AM , Rating: 2
I just like the fact it has virtually eliminated driver cd's. Every single piece of hardware I've plugged into a Windows 7 PC has been detected through Windows Update.

And the performance improvements over Vista are plain remarkable. I run Windows 7 on a 10-year old IBM x40 with a gig of ram just as fast as it ran XP.


Good
By bradmshannon on 1/29/2010 9:57:06 AM , Rating: 2
Good for them! I'm glad to see them on the uptick.

And that pic of Steve is priceless :)




RE: Good
By Gyres01 on 1/29/2010 11:03:19 AM , Rating: 2
I gave them my 104 dollars a month ago and so far its been sweet computing...


I believe it
By Freezebyte on 1/29/2010 11:10:39 AM , Rating: 2
Had Vista 64bit for over a year and my gaming rig acted in strange ways including random POST lockups, continually HDD thrashing, application lockups during multitasking, piss slow network and file transfer speeds among other things.

Once I threw in Win 7 64 bit, all of it went away.




RE: I believe it
By thekdub on 2/1/2010 10:58:16 AM , Rating: 2
Funnily enough, I used Vista 32bit for almost 2 years and had none of those problems. I upgraded to Win7 64bit and have been experiencing all of those problems.

TBH, I enjoyed Vista more. I liked the user interface better, it seemed to run faster, took much less time to start up (and never froze when resuming from sleep, like 7 does almost every time)and I just generally had less problems with it. I may or may not be the only person in the world who feels that way...


Vista vs Win7
By p05esto on 1/30/2010 10:45:02 AM , Rating: 2
I may be in the minority...but I like Vista 64bit SP2 better than Win 7 (even feels faster, and is faster when you look at the benchmarks). That fricking Start menu, task bar icons and just a few other interface issues really bother me and my efficiency. The start menu in particular is not customizable enough by any stretch, that's the largest problem that needs fixing. Either fix it or bring back the classic start menu which worked great for power users.

And why does everyone think those desktop pictures that come with Win7 are so great? I think they are horrible horrible. They're so busy, unnacceptable for a desktop background. Not to mention the pics are really stupid looking. I'm out of touch I gues...




RE: Vista vs Win7
By fatbencher on 2/1/2010 8:57:04 AM , Rating: 2
I like the desktop art. Yes, it's very "in-yer-face". But it's a desktop background. The only reason why a busy background would be a problem, is if you have dozens of icons on it. And if you do that, then you are most likely prone to losing stuff anyway.


By BubbaJoe TBoneMalone on 1/29/2010 10:14:37 AM , Rating: 3
Just like XP. Almost everyone who purchased Windows 7 will wait about 10 years to buy a new version.




Not Surprised
By Ard on 1/29/2010 12:23:10 PM , Rating: 3
Windows 7 is a fantastic OS, easily the best version of Windows to date. It deserves to be setting records.




Not a complete turn-around
By nafhan on 1/29/2010 10:32:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Windows 7 marked a complete turn around for the company
I think it would be more accurate to say Win7 marks a marketing turnaround for the OS division that has improved profitibility. It's Vista plus better compatibility, interface tweaks, and performance improvements. I like Win7 and appreciate that they listened to their customers, but I wouldn't call it a complete turnaround.




vista sales
By zodiacfml on 1/29/2010 9:39:09 PM , Rating: 2
these are just Vista sales that should had been.
anyways, still better than never.




Where did they go??
By BoboGO on 1/31/2010 1:23:18 AM , Rating: 2
Why did Apple stop their Get A Mac ads? They are so funny and cool and cute... I actually go to the Apple website for the express purpose of viewing them (not to buy anything.. I drink water, not Kool-Aid) because they are just so damn funny!! Well, they did tend to get a little lame there at the end... but hey! They are funny as funk!! Check them out!!!!
http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/

I guess now that Windows 7 is out, and Apple has been experiencing some, umm, unexpected quality issues... I really hope they make more of those fantastically funny ads.... they were great !




By drunkenmastermind on 2/1/2010 7:51:20 AM , Rating: 2
Like the first time I've paid for an OS.




Hoaks
By AstroGuardian on 2/1/2010 8:06:49 AM , Rating: 2
Of course it's widely adopted!
First they killed Windows XP with viruses and spyware (done by no else than Microsoft) and then Vista sucked.

Not that users are loving Windows 7 that much but they wanted to wake up from the IT nightmare which Microsoft created in the first place.




Not news
By gstrickler on 1/29/2010 10:17:29 AM , Rating: 1
This isn't news. If Win 7 wasn't the fastest selling OS in history, THAT WOULD BE NEWS. This just deserves a "Duh!"




Cheap online shopping
By sdfasdgdhasdf on 1/30/2010 12:50:57 PM , Rating: 1

http://0rz.tw/oPWXd
can accept the paypal payment.we can ship within 24 hours after your payment.

accept the paypal
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
http://0rz.tw/oPWXd




Not too shabby, way to fight the "down turn"
By Aloonatic on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
By StevoLincolnite on 1/29/2010 10:25:43 AM , Rating: 3
So in that case... Windows 95 was a Beta? Considering Windows 98 in that picture... Or Windows XP was a Beta as it's essentially a pretty version of Windows 2000?

Vista was a massive technological change from Windows XP, you can't expect a massive change like that to occur without issues.
For Instance the move from Win9x to Windows 2k/XP was a rather painful experience for allot of people, Vista's transition was smoother than that in comparison I reckon'.

No... Windows 7 is what I call a "Perfected" version of Windows Vista, at the core they are very similar beasts, but the end-user experience is so much better.

I love Windows 7, those on Windows XP no longer have an excuse to stick to that OS anymore, and those on Vista... Should have upgraded months ago!

I think that Microsoft should personally go with smaller "jumps" with there Operating Systems instead of large ones. (IE - Win98 to XP, XP to Vista).
Would reduce development time and less issues all-round should occur.

Microsoft deserves this pat on there back, they listened to there customers, and they delivered, now... To get the cattle prod out again and get the Xbox 360 RROD/E74 fixed. ;)

And for the record... this is what happens when you vote with your wallet, companies (regardless of size) will sit up and listen and improve there product/service.


RE: Not too shabby, way to fight the "down turn"
By Aloonatic on 1/29/2010 10:46:17 AM , Rating: 1
Win 95 was probably an alpha release, before Win 98 (beta) culminating in - Win 98 SE. I don't know what that makes win ME though :-D I'm Not sure about Win 2k and XP though, as Win 2k wasn't really a full release to the public (in the UK at least) as other version of windows have been. However, you do realise that pointing out that a company might have previous in this area is not really much of a defence?

Personally, I love Win 7 too, and I'm glad that I didn't bother with Vista, though that is mostly because I just didn't build/buy a machine during it's rather short life. What I do know is that I would feel a little miffed if I had bought a copy of Vista, and then a copy of Win 7 (in order to get "the perfect version" of what I had just paid out for) again as it really is better. That, and it's a good way to make money in these hard times is all I'm sayin' really.

Credit where credits due though. Kudos MS.


RE: Not too shabby, way to fight the "down turn"
By Spivonious on 1/29/2010 1:03:04 PM , Rating: 2
Definitely. 98 was crap. 98 SE was perfection. 95 was good for it's time, and a major improvement over 3.11.


RE: Not too shabby, way to fight the "down turn"
By RaistlinZ on 1/29/2010 2:24:08 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, Win98 SE was sublime. I had to be dragged kicking and screaming to upgrade to WinXP. But I've been on XP ever since. I'll jump to Win7 once I build my new rig or SP1 is released, whichever comes first.


By Belard on 1/29/2010 7:46:42 PM , Rating: 1
Most of these "was beta was Alpha" are kinda stupid.

As messed up as vista is, I still wouldn't call it a beta... a sloppy product, yes. Any x.0 OS tends to be problematic.

Win95 OSR2 was very stable (before Win98)... Win98se was the very best of the 98x. Win95 was horrible with PnP, but that was something very new for microsoft... remember, they are 10 years behind on Apple and Amigas - which HAD Multitasking (Amiga) and PnP (both) since 1985.

I remember Win95 pissing me off so much. "your modem is not installed, load drivers" - DAMMIT, the drivers are RIGHT #@$*($#@&(* there, you worked LAST time! And Win95 was so awful, many people were having to do clean re-installs of the OS every 2~6 months. My Last Win98se install had lasted well over 2 years until I went to XP.

Biggest reason I went to XP was that AMD 64 CPUs ran faster on XP than Win98 and of course memory issues.

RaistlinZ, I am using Win7rc on my notebook. I have gone back to XP on my two desktops because MS killed the $150 family pack. Any new PC I build or upgrade has been Windows7. I know that Win7 retail is better than RC - and only a few programs and game I use don't work or work right with Win7 (UT2004... uh oh). There are some oddities of Win7 that I still don't like. Explorer has lost functionality that have been around since Win95~XP... stupid to have done so. Funny thou, Win7 still keeps the ugly purple-blue drive-usage pie-chart of Windows95. :(
Look at DeFraggler, it has a much better looking graph.

But in general - Using XP on my desktop, its not as slick in looks and not as smooth or fast as when I had Win7 installed.

When they benchmark XP - vista - Win7, they are doing things like games FPS, Excel conversions, 3D-rendering, video encoding... fine, yes the numbers are mostly the same... with vista usually the slowest because of its defective memory usage.

But using Windows7, things happen faster, switching programs is smoother. Like if I'm recording a TV programing and doing other work - XP struggles at times where Win7 works great. Win7 booted up faster, I can launch my programs the second my desktop is loaded... XP, theres about 30 seconds of waiting... I could click on a Shortcut to launch a program - but it would only slow down the process and still take 30+ seconds. :(

Sleep / wake up is easily better on Win7 over XP, especially for notebooks.

So I'll go Win7 on my desktop when I upgrade my Intel Core2Quad (License issue) and upgrade one old productivity program that hates Win7.

Windows7 should be cheaper thou... it would increase the user base of legit users and make the upgrade path easier.


By TSS on 1/29/2010 5:40:52 PM , Rating: 2
I do want to note, considering i still remember going from windows 98SE to windows XP and finding out 75% of all my games suddenly didn't work anymore, XP can be considered a beta for atleast something :p

A beta that worked out pretty well after the service packs finalized it, by the way.

Vista same thing. I'm running Vista SP2 64 bit ultimate, and it works fine. About the same speed as XP on comparable hardware (what was out at this point in XP's lifespan). Actually runs more stable then XP did too, i've had to reboot way less.

I'm glad windows 7 is an improvement, but one i might miss alltogether. This rig runs more then fast enough to last me untill windows 8.


Cheap online shopping
By zengqunhai3 on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
Windows is forced on users - it is not popular
By RR6 on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Windows is forced on users - it is not popular
By Taft12 on 1/29/2010 11:23:28 AM , Rating: 5
You should be building your own computer from parts. No MS tax that way!


RE: Windows is forced on users - it is not popular
By Aloonatic on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
By themaster08 on 1/29/2010 2:43:18 PM , Rating: 2
When was the last time you bought a Mac without OSX preinstalled?


By Luticus on 1/29/2010 4:09:39 PM , Rating: 2
(to add to what themaster08 said)
Besides even that, how many of these said "most people" are smart enough to figure out linux and yet can't build their own pc. linux is NOT a vaible alternative to windows for the adverage user, the only thing that comes close is a mac because its "baby proof".

(referring to the origional poster here)
if you build your own pc then you're not stuck with anything. you can put what you want on it and even if you can't build your own i'm sure there are custom shops over there just like there are here in america who would be perfectly willing to build whatever you want and let you install your os of choice. it's not lack of options because manufactures force it on you, it's lack of options becauce noone fills the general market's needs anywhere NEAR as good as microsoft windows. Nuff said!


RE: Windows is forced on users - it is not popular
By RR6 on 1/30/2010 10:59:44 AM , Rating: 2
OSX is based on UNIX and so has a better fundamental architecture than Windows (even Windows 7). I would be happy to pay for OSX on cheap PC hardware instead of Windows...if Apple allowed it.

BTW Personally I wouldn't pay for overpriced Mac hardware.


By foolsgambit11 on 1/30/2010 11:41:46 PM , Rating: 2
And there are architectures that are fundamentally better than x86, and 220V is better than 110V, and the metric system is better than imperial measurements. In America, we like to pick the senseless things.... That's why we gave W 8 years. Or why we elected Obama, pick your poison/punchline.


By Motley on 1/29/2010 11:33:02 AM , Rating: 4
If it isn't being sold due to popularity, please, you have your business plan already, and according to you, a viable, lucrative audience just waiting to buy the PCs you build, and cheaper than the competition that is forcing everyone to pay this "Windows Tax".


By GreenEnvt on 1/29/2010 11:52:58 AM , Rating: 2
You have that option, you buy a PC tower, buy a motherboard, ram, hard disk, etc..
Put them together, and install whatever you like on it, no MS "tax".

Most people that care about linux enough to be annoyed that their computer comes with Windows on it, are more then capable of building their own PC's.

You can also order laptops in this fasion, order barebones laptops and add in the components you want.


By drzoo2 on 1/29/2010 12:35:30 PM , Rating: 3
When looking for a new laptop this Christmas I was browsing different Linux computer vendors and what I found that I wasn't saving anything buying from a Linux only vendor. A similarly configured Windows laptop from Dell was the same price or cheaper with the same hardware, and this included the latitude line.

Since Dell also sells Linux PC's I noticed that I couldn't get a decent Linux laptop from Dell any cheaper than a better configured Win PC (Including holiday sales).

z


By RR6 on 1/30/2010 10:49:41 AM , Rating: 2
That's fair comment if you want a desk top PC; however unless you are into gaming, most people I know want a laptop...and this isn't practical to build yourself.


By themaster08 on 1/29/2010 2:42:30 PM , Rating: 1
You'd better shut up. You're making us from the UK sound like idiots!

For the record, I'm from the UK and disagree entirely with this idiot.


By RR6 on 1/30/2010 10:40:44 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately it is making replies like that without any qualified argument that is idiotic.

Just to add to a valid point in one of the other replies... If you buy a laptop with the intention of running Linux on it, there is virtually no selection available without Linux and those that are available have a very poor specification and are no cheaper. Furthermore if you purchase a laptop with Windows pre-installed and there is a hardware issue, the shop/manufacturer typically asks you to re-install Windows as it was shipped.

This is an issue about choice and the EU regulation about being able to purchase complete PCs/laptops without Windows is unfortunately not worth anything. Those vendors supporting the EU regulation typically charge to remove Windows.

An acceptable compromise might be if manufacturers always shipped a Windows installation disk with all systems so at least Windows could be installed in a separate partition or as a guest OS under KVM.


"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki