Comments

• David Gerard

  2009-10-09 18:08:27

  The difference with Windows 7 is that they've tried really hard to get the curious trying out the beta and RC.
  
  And really, for Windows, it's not bad on modern hardware. Be sure to have at least 1 GB memory and preferably 2 GB.
  
  While they did pump up the hype machine, I will say, as no friend of Microsoft, that Windows 7 is not horrible, not the way Vista was.

• David Gerard

  2009-10-09 18:09:51

  Oh - and I do recommend that free software advocates download and try Windows 7, so that they know what they're talking about. Informed advocacy always beats uninformed advocacy.
  
  (This is of course not obligatory, for those who get the horrors at the very idea of touching Windows ever again ;-) )

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-10-09 20:26:41

  I've tried Vista at the airport (once). It doesn't have the programs that I like, so it's of little use to me. I also find it hard to work with such a limited desktop environment.

• faltu

  2009-10-09 17:29:42

  Office 2010 to come in Ad-supported version Microsoft is working on new ways to bring Office to people, including a free ad supported version to be bundled with new PCs...
  
  LOL.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-10-09 17:39:59

  The profit margins would be too thin. Are pop-ups part of the plan?

• Chips B. Malroy

  2009-10-10 00:04:26

  Why Ballmer knows that Seven will not sell that well.
  
  The acid test, is Seven better than XP. Or to ask it another way, what does Seven give of value that XP cannot with 3rd party software? This question has been asked before by many people and I have not seen one good answer yet. UAC might be the closest thing to it, except if you set up XP as a limited user account, then you are better off than Vista/Seven with UAC as Administrator, the default setup. Strike one for Seven.
  
  So will the masses be running out to upgrade XP to Seven? Well, mostly Seven is just like Vista, and dosen't support a lot of that old hardware that XP does, so I think not. Strike two for Seven.
  
  So really, the only way to get Vista, whoops, I mean Seven, is to buy it already pre-installed (MS TAX) on a new computer. But wait, the USA is in a depression, even some people living in tents more and more. How many are going run out and buy a new computer with Seven on it, no matter if it was the best thing since sliced bread (and its NOT). Strike three for Seven, and they are out.
  
  Also, lets discuss STRIKE FOUR for Seven, the fact that so many have pirated XP, and simply will not ever pay for any Operating System period. Its not about if its right or wrong for them to do so, only that is the way it is, and its going affect the bottom line now since MS has let users do this so long. Now some users expect never to pay MS. 22% in the USA, is the appox number, higher everywhere else.
  
  Strike Five for Seven, nothing really improved on the malware issue for users. No Value.
  
  Strike Six for Seven, did I mention that Linux is Free and compared to Windows is practically malware free, if not free.
  
  Strike Seven for Seven, hey ARM Netbooks are coming, and they don't do Windows.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2009-10-10 00:09:42

  Microsoft has already spun this last one in the press, saying that Microsoft doesn't do ARM.

• Chips B. Malroy

  2009-10-10 00:23:31

  One has to ask, "WHY MICROSOFT CANNOT FIX IT MALWARE PROBLEMS?"
  
  Sorry if I yelled (caps) there, but I wanted to really make the point. A company with supposedly vast riches and expertise, cannot fix a simple little malware problem in windows since the days of Dos before Windows 95 even.
  
  Now a lot of Linux users will say its because MS is afraid of breaking legacy apps and games, there just is no way. I don't for a minute believe that, a company with their resources could have fixed the problem long ago IMO. So lets search for the answer. Here is my theory.
  
  Microsoft actually gains some from malware, its like planned obsolescence. The malware kills the windows computer at some point, and the average user buys a new one. Also, MS is toying with security suits these days, free for now, but somehow, I would expect them to charge for it if they can run (and cause problems for other software) others out of the market. In fact, MS former OneCare was a paid antivirus. Nothing like a company that creates the problem with badly engineered software, to try to make a profit off its users, with the problem they created in the first place.