Ballmer: Win 7 Sales 'Fantastic', 2x Predecessors

[tester24]

shit toms cut my response short...

How about the fact that when a program decides to crash it doesn't lock the entire system causing for you to either wait a while for XP to realize something went wrong, or you reboot.
Being more secure than previous version as well as having way better utilities. And for the price you can buy a copy of vista/XP you can get a copy of 7. Not to mention you can actually remove a feature you don’t like. I think a lot more developers will support some of the new features and capabilities of the new OS.
I also say that the so called "fluff" would be an improvement because no one wants to keep using the same looking OS forever (I don’t know how Apple people still do it). Also a lot of the navigation and the way the UI is set up I would consider an improvement for anyone who is a serious multitasker.
I have yet to have a single game that has not worked on windows 7, only game that was hard to install was the expansion to doom 3 but that was because it was a 64 bit OS, had same problem with XP 64 bit.

 

[imrul]

cool

 

[sylvia648]

My guess are the numbers are from everything and not just one purchasing point say retail or oem sales. They did have a college student thing going on which could have sold a lot of them seeing as the os was going for thirty bucks which ain't bad and they should probably do that for everyone seeing as it would promote more licenses being issued because of the low price point. But as you know with all new pc sales the new os will rack up the numbers as well because most of them are sold with windows already on the system at the time of purchase. I'm sure apple would see numbers like this as well if they sold their os without their hardware or made cheaper variants of their macbook or maybe even a mac netbook with a tiny version of the os or a "lite" version. But a mac netbook for 299 might sell like hot cakes as they are the trendy thing to by now with the ipods and so forth.

 

[V8VENOM]

Interestingly, Ballmer did not attach a number of unit sales to the term "fantastic," but the Wall Street Journal has supposedly pegged the number sold at 40 million copies sold, though it's unclear if that is just retail, OEM, bundled, or a combination.

So basically no real data has been provided by anyone other Wall Street Journal "estimate" -- and none of you Windows fanboys even question that??

Yeah, that's right, keep changing how the OS looks, that'll fool the Windows fanboys -- oh brother the mentality! It's an OS, not a game. Since when was it good to keep changing how one uses their OS? It's a host for applications/games to run on, it should be something you don't need to think about and NOT be IN YOUR FACE like Vista and Windows 7 is.

So you Windows 7 fanboys like bling? Resource sucking bling to a part of your OS? For example, moving a window around in Windows 7 if you move it to the bottom of the screen you get a "bump" animation -- oh yeah that so incredibly useful. OMFG people -- maybe the should dangle little shiny objects in front of you for endless hours of entertainment.

The Windows 7 GUI is horrible, it's once again re-arranged where everything sits (Control Panel for example). And they also managed to screw up how explorer works, yet again changing default behavior for no real benefit. UAC is still in your face only this time you get to a choice of how much you want it to be in your face.

But again, another article from Tom's that really says nothing with no real data and no one other than Microsoft knows the real sales numbers, yet they're unwilling to actually specify the number of sales saying it's "fantastic" -- if it's so "fantastic" why not share the actual numbers broken down into the appropriate categories, Pre-install, Business, home, OEM, etc. etc. Microsoft didn't release sales numbers for Vista because it was bad, and now it appears they aren't release sales numbers for Windows 7 -- one can assume for the same reason, it's bad.

 

[RADIO_ACTIVE]

[citation][nom]pjmelect[/nom]Although Windows 7 is much much better than Vista there is still a lot still wrong with it, there is still no compelling reason to upgrade from Windows XP and I will probably stick with XP until the day I decide to go 64 bit.[/citation]
Like what?

 

[chardrak]

[citation][nom]V8VENOM[/nom]So basically no real data has been provided by anyone other Wall Street Journal "estimate" -- and none of you Windows fanboys even question that??Yeah, that's right, keep changing how the OS looks, that'll fool the Windows fanboys -- oh brother the mentality! It's an OS, not a game. Since when was it good to keep changing how one uses their OS? It's a host for applications/games to run on, it should be something you don't need to think about and NOT be IN YOUR FACE like Vista and Windows 7 is.So you Windows 7 fanboys like bling? Resource sucking bling to a part of your OS? For example, moving a window around in Windows 7 if you move it to the bottom of the screen you get a "bump" animation -- oh yeah that so incredibly useful. OMFG people -- maybe the should dangle little shiny objects in front of you for endless hours of entertainment.The Windows 7 GUI is horrible, it's once again re-arranged where everything sits (Control Panel for example). And they also managed to screw up how explorer works, yet again changing default behavior for no real benefit. UAC is still in your face only this time you get to a choice of how much you want it to be in your face.But again, another article from Tom's that really says nothing with no real data and no one other than Microsoft knows the real sales numbers, yet they're unwilling to actually specify the number of sales saying it's "fantastic" -- if it's so "fantastic" why not share the actual numbers broken down into the appropriate categories, Pre-install, Business, home, OEM, etc. etc. Microsoft didn't release sales numbers for Vista because it was bad, and now it appears they aren't release sales numbers for Windows 7 -- one can assume for the same reason, it's bad.VBVENOM is an utter moron. Every single word you said against Win 7 can be turned around on Apple AND Linux. OS improvements are OS improvements. The graphics of the Windows GUI DO NOT HINDER PERFORMANCE in anything. I have 5 FPS FASTER on average with Win 7 with full Aero effects than I have in my Fresh XP install. If in this day and age, you cannot run full Windows 7 effects without a problem, you have a seriously outdated machine. Mine is over 2 years old at this point and it runs flawlessly and has done so since beta was released.[/citation]

VBVENOM is an utter moron. Every single word you said against Win 7 can be turned around on Apple AND Linux. OS improvements are OS improvements. The graphics of the Windows GUI DO NOT HINDER PERFORMANCE in anything. I have 5 FPS FASTER on average with Win 7 with full Aero effects than I have in my Fresh XP install. If in this day and age, you cannot run full Windows 7 effects without a problem, you have a seriously outdated/totally obsolete machine. Mine is over 2 years old at this point and it runs flawlessly and has done so since beta was released. Every program works flawlessly. The only hardware glitch is an incompatible video capture card that cannot work under ANY 64-bit OS. Just so you know asshat, Mac OS X was incompatible with all hardware and most software of OS 9. /shock. Updates to an OS and hardware will do that.

 

[V8VENOM]

Chardrak,

OS 9 is for PowerPC CPU based Mac - not even the same CPU archiecture as Intel based Macs running OSX -- get a clue!! This demonstrates your fundamental lack of understanding anything about Apple computers.

So you agree, Windows 7 has non-functional bling? How many render cycles do you think a window edge transparency involves? (that's what Aero enables in Vista and Win7) hint, it's more than one. In fact, why do you think Microsoft even make Aero optional?? Becaue they KNEW it was a performance hog. Creating a useless "bounce" animation for when one drags there window to the bottom takes CPU cycles and graphics processing and RAM -- it doesn't just magically happen. Add all these little things in Win7 adds up (because there are many of them) and you have a bloated slow OS that isn't really providing any benefit to the end user other than some shiny bling which they'll soon not even notice.

So turn it around then -- you haven't listed anything? Apple's OS appearance has NOT changed much over time -- and someone even posted that as a "bad thing" which I find hilarious. And OS should be fast and functional and be as much out of the way as possible, it should not be full of in your face bling bling that most will eventually not care about.

At least background shadow (which again does introduce a performanc hit) around a window provides a clearer distinguishing element -- makes it stand out. That does have some functionl relevance (which is something the OSX has had for a while also).

 

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]V8VENOM[/nom]In fact, why do you think Microsoft even make Aero optional?? Becaue they KNEW it was a performance hog.[/citation]
Well in XP the themes were optional as well. You could go with the Classic theme if you wanted consistency. Win 7 removed that sadly.

[citation][nom]V8VENOM[/nom]And OS should be fast and functional and be as much out of the way as possible, it should not be full of in your face bling bling that most will eventually not care about.[/citation]
This. I use my computer to run applications for productivity, not to run an OS that looks pretty. The OS should be ore or less transparent (and I mean functionally, not visually 😉)

 

[cyberkuberiah]

Yeah however you fail to mention that Linux, Unix and even Mac OS are the same code with just some updates. Every "new" OS ever built has been built on by it's preceding OS. To redo an OS from scratch would be an engineering nightmare and would take over twice the amount of time to do it.

As far as windows 7 goes, it's definitely a huge improvement over Vista. It would be like comparing Mac OS 10.1 to 10.6. Sure it has somewhat the same look and feel but they behave very differently.

i dont know that much about osx , but linux is at best a far descendant of unix , as so much code has been added now . even in linux , the KDE and Gnome are really very large and are developed side by side . and ubuntu is very different from Red hat server linux and its packages .

and i forgot , Dx11 is there now in vista with the update , THE important thing for gamers .

and , i have no intention of bashing MS (i dont use linux or anything else even at workplace) , DX10 could have been enabled/modded to run on XP but for marketing concerns . this thing is THE difference in windows and linux , where you can ungrade every package independently (or rare , but even compile it to run custom ).

sure windows 7 is an improvement , thats a valid user point , but from a software viewpoint , all it requires is tweaks . and jump lists , while being helpful to users , dont require that much of an engineering effort .

DRM , which was touted as a reason to ditch vista , still plagues 7 . if vista would have been successfully marketed , 7 could have very well been a new service pack . MSDN guys would not disagree with me on this .

vista's bad marketing made the name change imminent . 7 has seen one of the shortest periods when MS releases a new OS .

 

[randomizer]

but linux is at best a far descendant of unix

Linux isn't even based on Unix code. It's a Unix-like OS, but was developed from scratch.