Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Microsoft Windows

XP Users Are Willing To Give Windows 7 a Chance 720

Harry writes "PC World and Technologizer conducted a survey of 5,000 people who use Windows XP as their primary operating system. Many have no plans to leave it, and 80% will be unhappy when Microsoft completely discontinues it. And attitudes towards Vista remain extremely negative. But a majority of those who know something about Windows 7 have a positive reaction. More important, 70 percent of respondents who have used Windows 7 say they like it, which is a sign that Windows 7 stands a chance of being what Vista never was: an upgrade good enough to convince most XP users to switch."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

XP Users Are Willing To Give Windows 7 a Chance

Comments Filter:
  • Try Windows 7? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by squiggly12 ( 1298191 ) on Monday August 17, 2009 @11:51PM (#29100941) Journal
    I would, but with some of the problems I had with Vistax64 (could have been hardware issues), I might wait until SP1 at least. Hell, it took me that long to migrate from Windows 2000. I waited until frakking SP1 was out!
    • Re:Try Windows 7? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by PIBM ( 588930 ) on Monday August 17, 2009 @11:56PM (#29101007) Homepage

      What's stopping you from trying the beta ? Put up a new harddrive / empty a small partition, turn on your AHCI and install windows 7!

      Time to put those 8gb of ram to some use besides in linux :)

      • Putting a beta OS on physical parititions? Many forms of virtualization exist which are far better suited to testing beta software. What kind of geek are you? I think your remediation should be installing 8 different distros of Linux in VMs to better acquaint yourself with virtualization.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Khyber ( 864651 )

          Any real geek has a machine with multiple partitions and multiple OSes already installed - VM not necessary.

          For example, I've got the latest Ubuntu (32 and 64 bit) XP (32-bit) Vista (64-bit) ReactOS (32-bit) MenuetOS (64-bit) and just for shits and grins I have 98SE installed as well.

          Also, if one OS dies, the other operating systems are still there to use. As long as the bootloader itself does not get screwed up, I'm fine.

    • by rhook ( 943951 ) on Tuesday August 18, 2009 @12:12AM (#29101137)
      No need to wait for sp1, Windows 7 might as well be Vista SP3 with a new UI and more efficient code.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Skreems ( 598317 )
        And no ability to upgrade from XP without wiping your entire machine. That's a hell of a "feature" for something that may as well be Vista SP3.
  • by quarterbuck ( 1268694 ) on Monday August 17, 2009 @11:54PM (#29100981)
    The real test of Windows 7 won't be users, it would be enterprise customers. There are still a lot of large Windows setups which have not upgraded from XP (Investment Banks and their "excel sheet departments" for ex.). The decision to switch would in that case be taken by Sysadmins and the like.
    • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Tuesday August 18, 2009 @12:22AM (#29101233)

      Nope. Sorry, but nope. SysAdmins are the ones who have to suffer from changes, they're not the ones that make or even decide them. There are 3 deciding factors when it comes to a system switch:

      1) Requirements of a top important application
      2) Golf partners of decision makers
      3) Investment cycles

      Only the first reason is one that is based on technical issues, and even in those the average Admin (and sometimes even CTO) has little if any say in. Essentially, if MS wants to "force" enterprise customers to update, they need to nudge the makers of important enterprise applications (Autodesk, SAP...) to require newer systems.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )

      Meh, that "proof" is as useless as ever. Enterprise customers are always, always slow and they try to minimize every possible upgrade they must make. But when push comes to shove they'll take the smallest bump possible, which will be Windows. The business case for an upgrade is almost always negative, for whatever small gains the OS gives there's the cost of software, hardware, updating any and all guides and training, administration procedures, scripting etc. which makes it basically a "dentist project". N

    • If I wanted to use it in my office I would want the features in the full version. With the proposed price for that it's even beginning to look as if OS X on Mac hardware instead of what superficially looks like an OS X ripoff would be better value. However, the important thing is the applications so you buy the platform that will run them.
      It's a pity that the 5 digits per seat software my users run starts and stop services just to put stuff on the screen so every user would need Admin access and UAC turne
  • DRM? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by OrangeTide ( 124937 )

    Does Windows 7 have more DRM or less than Windows XP? I think my decision to switch will be primarily biased along that criteria.

    • Re:DRM? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by marklar1 ( 670468 ) on Tuesday August 18, 2009 @12:12AM (#29101133)

      The RC Release Candidate is downloadable for another 2 days (until the 20th, I believe) just try it.

      The DRM seems like it always has...if you own the media, or it is DRM free, then you shouldn't have a problem. The amount of annoying dialogs for permissions is wayyy less than Vista. It is smooth, fast, better laid, and I've not had a single crash or let down over the last few weeks of trying it out. The layout is much cleaner, OS X users will immediately "get" the dock (whether you like it or not is another issue)...

      My main curiousity was the Media Center (got a deal on a PC from a friend that is dedicated to that purpose, leaving me to do my "work" on an old PowerMac) and it is amazingly good vs. Vista's complete F%^%*!? dissapointment.
      I was adamant that MS owed Vista MC users some love, and felt shafted to need an OS to finally get a WMC that works, but this is soooo much better all the way around...and @ the pre-ordered $49 goes a long, long way to fixing the hurt.

      The RC will work well into 2010, so freakin' load it up and see for yourself...what do you have to loose...?

      For the record, my main machines have been macs since 84, occasional Win and Nix experiences. I'm overdue for a new desktop, hate Apple's choice of iMac with fixed graphics and screen, or a $2000 Pro Mac sucks... This could really be the jump ship point for me to be a reverse switcher...

    • Does Windows 7 have more DRM or less than Windows XP?

      Is that even a sentence? What?

      If it supports more DRMed formats than before, is that "having more DRM"? If you mean Windows activation, it's business as usual.. you put in the key and it registers on the activation servers.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Does Windows 7 have more DRM or less than Windows XP? I think my decision to switch will be primarily biased along that criteria.

      You can do everything in 7 that you could do in XP (i.e. there are no new restrictions on existing stuff). On the other hand, it has new DRM for stuff which you can't handle without supporting some - such as BluRay.

  • by olsmeister ( 1488789 ) on Monday August 17, 2009 @11:57PM (#29101021)
    Why? Because XP came pre-installed on my last computer, and Windows 7 will come pre-installed on my next one.
  • by mrboyd ( 1211932 ) on Monday August 17, 2009 @11:57PM (#29101027)
    and now that the various device drivers for vista works people like it... Is it a feat of engineering or marketing?
    • More less. FWIW having ran the RC for a while, I hope they improve it a lot between that an release. Truthfully, though I'm normally a Mac user anyways, on my Windows machines I prefer Vista to 7 (and XP to Vista in turn). I'm sure 7 has some nifty features that I haven't discovered yet, but it really drags on a machine that ran XP and even Vista ok. For a while it was eating 100% of my RAM until I noticed that the .NET Runtime Optimization service (or something named pretty close to that - not on the W

      • If you have some ".NET Runtime Optimization service" running, you're doing Windows wrong. If you're going to use Windows you have to trim the fat.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by michaelhood ( 667393 )

          As someone running Windows 7 final (MSDN), I have to say that it's pretty ridiculous to expect end users to "trim the fat" from their OS.

          That said, I haven't had any such issues except once when I opened the system information dialog and inadvertently triggered the refresh of my Windows Experience Index measurement. This spawned a background process to run some benchmarks, and continued running after I closed the dialog. Took me a few minutes to figure out what was going on.

    • A little of both, but I gotta believe it's mostly marketing combined with the maturity of Vista-focused third-party software development.

  • Windows 7 (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DaMattster ( 977781 )
    I acutally like Windows 7, it crusies on my low-end, Sam's Club Dell Inspiron 1525 Celeron with 2GB of RAM. I still have plenty of memory for doing other things. Gnome and KDE have some catching up to do again. Looks like Microsoft took a page from the open source play book of only accepting quality code. That said, I am still pro open source but, at my job, we are going to Windows 7 so I'd better learn it, kicking and screaming.
    • Re:Windows 7 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by je ne sais quoi ( 987177 ) on Tuesday August 18, 2009 @12:19AM (#29101203)

      That said, I am still pro open source but, at my job, we are going to Windows 7 so I'd better learn it, kicking and screaming.

      At my job, we're all learning linux, latex, openoffice and hiring programmers to get us off MS software all together. Granted, I'm the boss, so it makes it easier, but it is still a very gradual process. Also, my employees have started bringing in their personal laptops with Ubuntu on them -- I figure now is as good a time as any. Our IT department will try to get us to upgrade to Win7 but I will fight the upgrade train as much as politically sane to do, because I'm just not interested in learning it and I'm really tired of getting screwed by MS with every other OS. I keep XP around because lots of software runs only on it and nothing else, especially PCs that control equipment. These PCs will need to stay, but we no longer need dedicated windows desktops in the group, the last one is now dual-booting to debian. Everything else except the equipment drivers is mac or linux.

    • Re:Windows 7 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by D Ninja ( 825055 ) on Tuesday August 18, 2009 @12:38AM (#29101355)

      I may get modded troll for this, but open source != quality code. In theory, it is more likely that that is the case, but I have seen some open source code that made me die a little on the inside. Microsoft's developers are generally smart people who know their job. Many of the issues that ships with the operating system results from very poor (and too much, IMO) management. (For the record, I am not a Microsoft employee...I just like following various companies, of which Microsoft is one.)

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by 0123456 ( 636235 )

        Microsoft's developers are generally smart people who know their job.

        This is something that's often puzzled me: the Microsoft developers I've come across seem to be smart and perfectly capable of producing a high-quality product. Yet the company perpetually churns out steaming donkey shit.

  • by onionman ( 975962 ) on Tuesday August 18, 2009 @12:06AM (#29101085)

    I have Macs on my desktops, and I run Linux for my number crunching machines. So, I'm no Microsoft fanboy. However, it seems to me that Microsoft actually tried to do the right thing with Vista... namely they built a reasonably secure operating system from the ground up and decided to actually enforce the programming paradigms. The problem isn't with Vista, it's with the antiquated applications that still need tons of shims to work. For example, I recently installed Quicken on my father in law's XP machine and discovered that it wouldn't work unless running as an admin account, which is simply absurd! So, I worry that Windows 7 is just a light weight version of Vista with most of the security rolled back so that insecure applications will be able to continue running and users won't complain about their favorite applications breaking.

    • by Drakino ( 10965 ) <d_slashdot.miniinfo@net> on Tuesday August 18, 2009 @01:23AM (#29101699) Journal

      However, it seems to me that Microsoft actually tried to do the right thing with Vista... namely they built a reasonably secure operating system from the ground up and decided to actually enforce the programming paradigms. The problem isn't with Vista, it's with the antiquated applications that still need tons of shims to work.

      Nope. And thats part of the problem. Vista started life as the Server 2003 SP1 code after the restart on Longhorn. UAC and such was just bolted on, .Net was kicked to the curb inside the OS, and the OS was rushed out the door from code restart to ship in 18 months. This quick cycle left driver vendors hanging, leading to compatibility issues day one. It also lead to some horrendous bugs, like Direct X apps using up twice as much memory as they should and so on.

      A proper new secure OS from Microsoft would have to pull the same trick Apple did. Throw the old OS in a box, allow it to run in the new OS, and kick all old APIs to the curb. A good start would be the Singularity OS Microsoft has in it's research labs.

    • by ducomputergeek ( 595742 ) on Tuesday August 18, 2009 @01:26AM (#29101715)

      I recently put Windows 7 on my Bootcamp partition and I've been pleasantly surprised. It runs pretty snappy on this older MacBook with 2GB of ram. All of our Windows based apps work fine. I could even get it to boot in Parallels Desktop 3, but not do much. (Need to upgrade to Parallels 4 to get it to work with Windows 7). Hell, it recognized the Airport card out of the box. Same with the Intel GMA drivers. Only thing I needed from Bootcamp was the "Restart in OSX" option.

      I've even installed Windows 7 on a number of friends vista machine and they all are much more impressed at how snappy it is compared to Vista even on older hardware.

  • secure! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 18, 2009 @12:06AM (#29101087)

    And this time, unlike Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98SE, Windows ME, Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Vista, Windows 7 really will be secure. Really!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 )

      It is. A lot of old exploits don't work anymore, just as every time. And just like every time before, we'll get new exploits.

      Generally though we'll see a lot more social engineering and "you have to install this or something horrible happens", as well as a shift more towards third party applications, as we've seen already. The security hole in MS systems these days isn't Windows anymore. It's mostly plugins for Browsers, at least for now. The new Windows is Flash and PDF reader. At least 'til Adobe gets its

  • There isn't much choice on this issue. MS Windows XP is 10 years old. It has been stable for six years or so, but is now showing sign of age. On my older XP machines I am going to have to do a clean install to get them running, and the machines are older anyway, so they are not working really well. The Vista machines I have seen do not seem to work real well, have trouble doing simple things, so I don't think Vista is the way to go. But if MS Windows 7 does work, and if the major apps work, I certainl
  • by tecker ( 793737 ) on Tuesday August 18, 2009 @12:08AM (#29101099) Homepage
    The thing with the businesses is CHANGE. See they have this software they know works with XP, Sysadmins who know XP front and back, users who are used to XP, zero in the buy-new-machines fund, and are looking to save money anywhere they can. To justify buying a new version of Windows might be hard since, despite its age, XP works.

    Our university department is cash strapped right now and despite heavy discounts we will NOT be moving to 7 unless it comes installed on a computer. We might if we are lucky get it in the 2011 FY budget. Unlikely though. Our users are so used to the look and feel that they likely would balk at the 7 upgraded look, and ask us to put back in the "classic" look. Yes the Windows 2000 look. Not that new XP Luna stuff. 2000. Thats why we are not switching to 7 anytime soon. The users could care less and our administrators wont give us the money.

    Plus, were a little lazy and dont want to reinstall all of those comptuers.
  • Mohave (Score:2, Insightful)

    Remember the Mohave ads? Microsoft showed people a "new" OS and supposedly they liked it (although they could only really see it under very controlled conditions that would not show the faults, like driver incompatability). And then it was revealed that the OS was really Vista, which no one liked.

    Now jump forward to the present. MS finally has a service pack that will fix many of the problems in Vista (although not all, and it still has very Vista characteristic performance benchmarks). Someone at M$ wan

  • by CajunArson ( 465943 ) on Tuesday August 18, 2009 @12:23AM (#29101241) Journal

    I've been a 99% Linux user since 2000, including 3 years of law school where I really only used Windows during exams because of Exam4 requirements. However, I'm starting a job at a (small) law firm and my laptop has Win 7 all loaded up and running. My prognosis so far: I can live with 7, especially because it runs Firefox and Cygwin runs Bash and basic UNIX utilities OK as well. I can even use VIM.

        Is it particularly fast? No, but it is not insanely slow. My laptop is recent but not super-high end, 2.2Ghz Core2 with 4GB of RAM is the good part, the Intel graphics are the bad part. Frankly, the Aero effects on Windows 7 work just as well as the compositing effects from KDE 4.3, meaning that they do work, but not blazingly fast like on my desktop with the Nvidia card. As for memory usage... despite claims to the contrary, Linux using a modern, fully featured desktop uses a little bit less RAM, but not significantly less. I'm not even close to filling up my 4GB even with office, firefox, and miscellaneous junk running, so no biggies there.

        I'm not a fan of Windows, I think that Windows 7 is somewhat boring for a "huge" release, but it does get the job done. My new job is concerned with me being able to write office documents and access Exchange + a small windows network, which Win7 makes stupidly simple. Do I miss virtual desktops? Sure. Am I annoyed that Windows still doesn't have very good window management and that I can't get rid of the annoying borders on my windows that the Bespin [] KDE theme lets me annihilate? You bet. At the same time, Windows does make certain configuration tasks easier (especially graphics & wireless even though I can and do use graphical utilities under Linux).

            I'm not saying that I couldn't do this just as well in Linux, but I am saying that I don't have the time to get my system tweaked to the rest of the office... at least immediately. This is a small law firm with technically proficient lawyers, and being the most junior associate I won't be shocked if I get some IT related tasks from time to time, but my day job is to be able to use nice boring office software, which Windows 7 allows for in a reasonably secure way.

            As for the XP part of this... I had an old XP license that I did purchase fair & square (for $10 from my University back in the day). It could have gotten the job done for a while, but Win7 really does have better security and like it or not it is the path forward. One major feature that Win7 has over XP is the find option in the start menu. Since MS keeps screwing with the Control Panel and everything else, I almost never bother to hunt through menus. Instead I just type in what I want to do in the search bar and it does a very good job of finding what I want. In fact, it's likely faster that me clicking menus even if I did know where stuff was. I'm not sure if XP even had this feature but Win7 makes it very easy to use by default and I've saved quite a bit of time with it... so there ya go, one actual reason to upgrade!

    • by mgblst ( 80109 ) on Tuesday August 18, 2009 @03:45AM (#29102457) Homepage

      I was the second person to download Linux 0.1, have been a Linux devotee since then, spend weekends installing Red Hat on laptops at best buy for fun, weekdays hand out free DVD with Ubuntu, and have converted all the University machines to Scientific Linux.

      Said that, I walked past an billboard advertising W7 and I was sold. It was so good, even on a huge paper display, that I am fully Microsoft now. I have become a c# developer over the last 20 minutes, and I am now as proficient in that as I was in C/C++. I have bought all the MS hardware, as well as all my clothes have little Microsoft icons on them.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by cbhacking ( 979169 )

      Just a tip: you can run (and build) POSIX apps (including bash, ssh/sshd, svn, gcc, and even things like httpd or window managers) in Windows without Cygwin. There's a POSIX-compliant subsystem for the NT kernel (just as the Win32 API that people are used to is implemented as a subsystem on top of NT). It's only available in the higher Windows editions, but it's faster and better integrated than Cygwin, and avoids a lot of Cygwin's silly restrictions (executables needing a .exe or similar extension, for exa

  • by oldhack ( 1037484 ) on Tuesday August 18, 2009 @12:28AM (#29101281)
    Sucks for those who bought Vista - service pack used to be free before.
  • by Peter Cooper ( 660482 ) on Tuesday August 18, 2009 @12:59AM (#29101489) Homepage Journal

    We get the same story every time. People don't want to upgrade from [2 versions ago] to [next version] and [last version] sucked.. but it always happens.

    A lot of people wanted to stick with 98, thought Me sucked, and didn't want to upgrade to XP until they absolutely needed to. Same shit, different decade.

  • Well of Course (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MadUndergrad ( 950779 ) on Tuesday August 18, 2009 @01:09AM (#29101581)

    Of course the people who've "tried" Windows 7 are gonna like it. They more than likely have used it on some special demo machine with the specs and thorough setup to make it usable. Just like Mojave, when users try it in a custom environment designed to make them like it, they'll like it. But that's not what they're getting on their Compaq POS-9000. They'll eventually realize they're unsatisfied with 7 and look forward to the new version of windows without realizing they're going to be duped again just like before.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Meumeu ( 848638 )

      They more than likely have used it on some special demo machine with the specs and thorough setup to make it usable. Just like Mojave, when users try it in a custom environment designed to make them like it, they'll like it. But that's not what they're getting on their Compaq POS-9000.

      Yeah, it's not like the beta and the RC1 have been publicly available for months now...

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by cbhacking ( 979169 )

      To the best of my knowledge, nobody has been getting "special demo machine[s]" with Win7. It's hardware requirements are pretty easily met by any desktop and the vast majority of laptops from the last 2 years, even including many netbooks. You can build a new computer for about $500 that will exceed Win7's requirements in every aspect by at least a factor of 2x, but honestly you probably don't need to. Hell, I've got a severely underpowered (ultra-low voltage, essentially extreme underclocking) tablet PC, a

  • by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Tuesday August 18, 2009 @01:30AM (#29101761)

    I haven't tried windows 7 yet. Before I even consider buying it (just to get away from Vista) can anyone tell me if Microsoft have continued the ongoing trend of assuming the users IQ and knowledge of computers is seriously diminishing with every new windows version?

    Vista hides much useful information that XP shows, and has introduced even more pointless, time wasting and just annoying "are you sure" dialog boxes even with UAC turned off. Can anyone confirm if the following stupidities have been fixed in Windows 7 or is the trend still downward?:

    XP's copy progrss dialog clearly states the filename and full path. Vista's doesn't even mention the name of the file you're copying any more and it only tells you a small part of the path of the source. It leaves you guessing which copy operation it relates to which is mindnumbingly clueless whenever you're doing multiple concurrent file copies.

    If you move a folder containing files to a different place that already has a folder with the same name, XP merges them fairly quietly and properly. Even with UAC turned off, Vista introduces extra supremely annoying and unavoidable dialogs to confirm each file in turn (yeah I know theres a "do this for all" checkbox but its still annoying). This extra dialog is not disableable and is really a pointless intrusion if you have any knowledge of what a move operation should do. Worse, even after a successful move, the source folder is left behind. I'd love to meet the marketing moron who thought of these new semantics just so I can kick him in the nuts.

    If there's even one file in a folder that Vista thinks might be a media file, Vista forces a media-style display on the contents of the whole folder. This results in all the useful info you need (such as file attributes and modified dates) getting hidden and replaced by a retarded popularity rating you will probably never use. It does this every time you create a new folder and you can't turn off this unwanted 'helpful' (snort) functionality.

    Vista's DRM means it can't play MY media to ME. XP can play it without problem.

    Vista still frequently forgets the last view settings you set ("sort by" choice etc) even if you set "remember each windows settings" and even do "apply to all folders". This is a problem Windows has had even way back to Windows 95 as I recall.

    Feedback about how Windows 7 works in these respects would be much appreciated. I'm not giving Microsoft even more of my money just to find out its no better (or even worse) than Vista for the stuff I do most.

  • Heathen (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Spad ( 470073 ) <slashdot@spad.[ ]uk ['co.' in gap]> on Tuesday August 18, 2009 @01:53AM (#29101919) Homepage

    OK, I admit it, I like Windows 7. I've been running Enterprise x64 at work since it was released on Technet and it's really good - driver support was almost flawless out of the box (Although when I tried to install the latest Catalyst drivers they consistant BSOD it, but that's really an ATI issue) and it runs much better than Vista on the same machine. The only things I've had problems with so far are old or stupid apps with hardcoded OS detection limits or 32-bit only libraries and so far all of them have worked via the XP Mode VM (Although there are some quirks with multiple monitors). My current plan is to upgrade my home PC from XP Pro to Windows 7 Ultimate x64 (Technet again) in the coming weeks. One completely awesome feature that they should have added years ago is the ability to right-click on a DHCP lease and convert it into a reservation, which saves me a hell of a lot of time.

    There are still negatives - there are some real issues with pinning certain apps to the taskbar, especially if they're located on a network drive (though there are workarounds), I'm not a fan of the way that they've over-simplified some of the menus making it difficult to find the advanced settings you want and the libraries are annoying, though I suspect they'll grow on me; also, Sharepoint still behaves inconsistently when trying to save documents directly to the site via Office 2007 as it did in Vista, especially with Visio for some reason. Oh, and even the new and improved UAC still annoyed me, so I had to turn it off completely - though I'd imagine non-power users probably wouldn't have as many issues with it.

    All in all, I think we all know that Windows 7 is the OS Vista should have been - and probably would have been if Microsoft hadn't decided on an arbitrary release date for it whether it was done or not (ignoring the business implications of letting Vista development continue for another 2 years) and I for one am very impressed with it so far.

  • by nulled ( 1169845 ) on Tuesday August 18, 2009 @02:07AM (#29102009)

    Did you know that the ONLY reason why Windows 7 was 'trimmed down' (ram, cpu and resource hog that Vista was)... was simply BECAUSE of Linux running on NetBooks?

    It is well known fact, that internal to MS, and to the top executives there, that they did not think Vista had ANY issues at all. Why do you think they spend all those MILLIONs of dollars on Mojave and the silly SienField commercials? They actually THOUGHT it was PUBLIC perception problem, not a technical one.

    It was not until the massive influx of the Netbooks, running Linux, that MS went 'Oh SH*T' we better do something. So, they HAD to make Win7 run on a Netbook.

    THIS and mostly only this, (seriously) was the reason for the 'trimming of the fat' and the rest was MASSIVE investment into WHY people hated vista. Hense, why the security popups are now GONE.

    Just remember, MS does not innovate... they simply copy others or react to negative things. If it were not for LINUX...MS would STILL be pushing out retarded Mojave ADs and others...

    Kinda ironic isn't it?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by weicco ( 645927 )

      Maybe all these Vista's "famous" problems was about bad or incompatible hardware and/or drivers. I have Vista on our other laptop, which is mainly in my wife's use, and we've had zero problems with it. I used to have a desktop PC with Vista and it worked like charm also. My coworker on the other hand has had some major problems with Vista. His desktop had some old hardware on it when my desktop had the latest state-of-the-art stuff inside.

      But what's ironic about MS wanting to compete on netbooks? I thought

  • Same Old same old (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hyades1 ( 1149581 ) <> on Tuesday August 18, 2009 @02:13AM (#29102041)

    The fact remains that most businesses won't change from XP, which runs on primitive machines, to Win7 (alias VistaLite) which still, for the most part, requires hardware upgrades. You could run a serious office with AppleWorks on a 2E, for shitsakes, and that (mercifully) went to its reward 20 years ago. Primitive spread sheet, word processor and data base...and Mail Merge. For the most part, subsequent improvements have been more devoted to eye candy (sorry...I know I'm oversimplifying a bit). The computing power of an average desk-top computer today is more than sufficient to run just about every small company in the world. Why would a guy running a body shop with a P2 give a crap about upgrading? The machine does everything he wants, and rudimentary security will stop all the nasty things from reaching his rarely-online machine.

    And if you honestly believe that The Boss gives a flying fuck about whether his staff have pretty transparent windows to look at while they're figuring out how much to charge for the bumper repair, you're smoking something I'd kill to get hold of.

    The average home computer has been kicking the ass of the average work computer for at least 10 years, and that situation isn't going to change any time soon. Win7 may be better than Vista. It's still going to be irrelevant until they start giving it away along with a free multi-threading P4 (which these days is worth just about as much as a bag of chips).

  • by tenzig_112 ( 213387 ) on Tuesday August 18, 2009 @09:16AM (#29104515) Homepage

    Special upgrade package just for disgruntled Vista Users

    Windows 7: Fool Me Twice Edition(tm)

I've finally learned what "upward compatible" means. It means we get to keep all our old mistakes. -- Dennie van Tassel