Microsoft Wants Windows 7 Users to Upgrade

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]sparky2010[/nom]whatever you guys say may be right or wrong, but there's one reason why windows 7 will work.. compatibility and oems.. almost every single program in existence is created to work with windows, and then they mac os/linux compatibility is considered.. and don't forget gaming.. plus, buying a laptop or pc from companies like hp, acer, sony, whatever.. you can bet your life that it'll have windows, and the latest one at that.. so no matter what we the people say, we have no choice but to eat out of microsoft's hands..citation]

This is what makes their failure to build a better OS that much more frustrating.
We're stuck with them and they are headed in a path that's worse with Vista and now Win7.

Most of the angry people here are angry because they use MS now, have to use MS and are being forced to watch as they continue to screw up the OS.

Haters of MS today are not just OSX and Linux fanboys but are intelligent people who rely on their PC's and don't like where things are going.
 
[citation][nom]aracheb[/nom]you are a morom, thanks god you are not the one who dictate the market, the ones who dictated the market are the companies who buy windows, and if those company see that most of their resources is going into IT Software without the R&D. you could what will happen. Companies will only look for something more affordable or maybe free. And that is where linux will play it hands. Linux work and compatibility is growing more and more everyday that pass. i installed a distro of ubuntu and was surprised with the easy of the installation i thought i would be hard as about 8 years ago when i first installed one distro of linux that was super difficult. I'm Running that distro of ubuntu flawlessly..i'm also running a free exchange clone on my Linux Centos. (Free exchange clone) all the compatibility with outlook for those who already have outlook. do you know how much monies have linux bringed to my pocket.. when im able to setup a Free mail server and i only need to buy the hardware. i deploy a Postpath server in one of my clients and they are super happy with the solution i save them let me see. 1- 3,600 in 2 windows server 2008 (with a free copy of linux)2- 10,350 in 230 cal at 45 each. 3- 15,110 in 2 copy of exchange 20074- 11,730 in cal for exchange 2007 that is let me see = 44,195 Taxes includedmy actual value was around = 4600 (Hardware and software)so the net saving would be equal = 39,595.005- Plus the save in hardware that i needed for the deployment that was a lot a lot less than what i would have needed using exchange 2007 i wounder when would you do an investment like that for your house.i bet. (never)wake up (is business who dictate the market)[/citation]

There you go! Exactly. There is a few factors that stop this from being widespread in today businesses. First, a business that is already running around a Microsoft platform can't really move back, even for a major upgrade, cause most of the homebrew applications are written for this platform and the IT department is trained to work with this platform. Another factor is the propagation of desinformation about an alternative model by morons like the guy you are quoting (with probably more knowledge lol, but as close-minded). A competant IT personel for Linux administration is also harder to find, and even though Linux as a user perspective is easy to use, it's still alot harder to manage than Microsoft products. So don't forget ITs trained for Linux cost more to employ, but it's still cheaper at the end.

You can also run Linux as server and Windows as your clients if your employes are(and they probably are) more confortable and formed to work with MS OSes, Office and such. I SURE hope Linux will in the future kick Microsoft ass in the business department, and it's where it's going to happen if it is going to do one day, not on the mainstream market. Linux can be a pain in the ass to manage, but knowledge is power, and knowledge should know no boundaries in a place that is as competitive as in the businesses, contrary to a personal use situation.

To go to the main topic, as one guy stated, Microsoft should go with 3 distros, Mobile, Home and Professional. Mobile is really important cause any Vista distro is a pain on a average laptop. And YES, I seen and tried Vista running on a Dual Core, 2Gb RAM laptop, and it sucks. I heard one of my IT teachers swear at her computer with that same setup, wanting XP back.

Myabe it always been a common thing to need more juice for each MS OS that came out, but that MUCH of a leap with still not that good performance, never. And back then, Microsoft did'nt have any competition on the PC easy-to-use OS market, it now does. So that's just unacceptable, and the 3 applications limit is just another fucking joke on top of others that are coming from MS. Unfortunatly, as I stated, the shift is'nt going to happen on that level since average users are too stuborn, ignorant, or just don't have the time to mess with platform virtualization like Wine, or Cedega for games, for their everyday Windows applications. That points out the major fact why Microsoft will prevail, even with crappy products, cause of it's owning of the third party market. No wonder why Steve Balmer were screaming like a freak DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS on a show back then. It's one of the reasons why I myself still use MS XP. I'm a lazy power user. I use alot of apps and mess alot with OS management, but am too lazy and don't have the time to learn something every time I wanna change or try something new. But it's no reason to bash Linux on the mainstream. For an average user, who only browse the web, compose documents, check e-mails, Linux is as easy, as reliable as Windows, and is much faster on cheaper hardware with better eye-candy.
 
[citation][nom]ohim[/nom]and Avid/Premiere/Eidus/Fina Cut Pro works on linux too no (NOT)? btw never heard of this Macos you speak of.[/citation]

ohh
you never seen an Apple Mac computer
not my problem that you are ignorant =
for mac
there is

Avid = which is basic, nowhere close to proffesional video editing.
Premiere = is available for mac and base on many forum is more stable and faster.
Eidus = Go do the math and see how many people use eidus.
this is the video of my best friend his reel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLMPygnCW_Q&feature=related

(This is what he do for work)
3d Rendering (Maya and many other) I just asked him, how many people he nows use Edius NLE for editing. From the 3,000 video editor pool of contacts he have. guess what (about 25 to 50) AND DROPPING because to work to it full performance it require an expensive Quadro FX no lower than the 3600.

And final cut pro = just do the research and look where final cut pro is for mac my son...

 
m$ "innovation" = find new ways to milk even more customers

m$'s single greatest achievement was to lower customers expectations to a level never attained before, and to create them the impression of control of the machine.

note: beside the usual wintards (vi$hta is so great, $even'll be even greater, etc.), there is a new trend: "i am so proud to be an stupid american"
 
[citation][nom]n3ard3ath[/nom]There you go! Exactly. There is a few factors that stop this from being widespread in today businesses. First, a business that is already running around a Microsoft platform can't really move back, even for a major upgrade, cause most of the homebrew applications are written for this platform and the IT department is trained to work with this platform. Another factor is the propagation of desinformation about an alternative model by morons like the guy you are quoting (with probably more knowledge lol, but as close-minded). A competant IT personel for Linux administration is also harder to find, and even though Linux as a user perspective is easy to use, it's still alot harder to manage than Microsoft products. So don't forget ITs trained for Linux cost more to employ, but it's still cheaper at the end.You can also run Linux as server and Windows as your clients if your employes are(and they probably are) more confortable and formed to work with MS OSes, Office and such. I SURE hope Linux will in the future kick Microsoft ass in the business department, and it's where it's going to happen if it is going to do one day, not on the mainstream market. Linux can be a pain in the ass to manage, but knowledge is power, and knowledge should know no boundaries in a place that is as competitive as in the businesses, contrary to a personal use situation.To go to the main topic, as one guy stated, Microsoft should go with 3 distros, Mobile, Home and Professional. Mobile is really important cause any Vista distro is a pain on a average laptop. And YES, I seen and tried Vista running on a Dual Core, 2Gb RAM laptop, and it sucks. I heard one of my IT teachers swear at her computer with that same setup, wanting XP back.Myabe it always been a common thing to need more juice for each MS OS that came out, but that MUCH of a leap with still not that good performance, never. And back then, Microsoft did'nt have any competition on the PC easy-to-use OS market, it now does. So that's just unacceptable, and the 3 applications limit is just another fucking joke on top of others that are coming from MS. Unfortunatly, as I stated, the shift is'nt going to happen on that level since average users are too stuborn, ignorant, or just don't have the time to mess with platform virtualization like Wine, or Cedega for games, for their everyday Windows applications. That points out the major fact why Microsoft will prevail, even with crappy products, cause of it's owning of the third party market. No wonder why Steve Balmer were screaming like a freak DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS on a show back then. It's one of the reasons why I myself still use MS XP. I'm a lazy power user. I use alot of apps and mess alot with OS management, but am too lazy and don't have the time to learn something every time I wanna change or try something new. But it's no reason to bash Linux on the mainstream. For an average user, who only browse the web, compose documents, check e-mails, Linux is as easy, as reliable as Windows, and is much faster on cheaper hardware with better eye-candy.[/citation]

in the office that setup the exchange clone, the client are windows 2000 and xp with Microsoft office..
there is 1 old windows 2000 advance server running the active directory services (working as a print server/ Account authentication (among others)

I just didn't want to go to the trouble of after buying a new hardware, have to do the migration to windows server 2008, and expend all that money in OS and cal.

and yes i charged then a whole lot more money for this setup than what i would for the Microsoft setup. (without the migration) it took me a whole month on my site to go through the process flawlessly, and a lot of reading. A lot.

But even like this, the final cost was a less than half of what it would cost with the exchange setup.

and i also know another place that did the same, a hospital with around 1,300 users.
 
[citation][nom]killerb255[/nom]However, like any other zealot, they only think about their own interests and assume that the interests of the community as a whole mimics their own.[/citation]
Close - they hope the interests of the community mimic their own. Coming to a forum like this and bashing one product while vehemently supporting another is classic buyer's remorse. Here in particular, the Linux/Mac supporters want their 10% market share OSs to be loved and accepted by everyone - including MS supporters - to assuage their fears that their choice wasn't the best one.

It's okay to like something different than the mainstream. If someone doesn't like your choice of OS, does it bruise your ego so much that you have to bash their choice and try to convince others of your position? Linux is a great OS. OSX has its place. Windows is a great OS too. It's your choice - if you feel you made the right one for you, more power to you. Just please accept that other people have made the choice that's right for them as well.
 
[citation][nom]aracheb[/nom]in the office that setup the exchange clone, the client are windows 2000 and xp with Microsoft office..there is 1 old windows 2000 advance server running the active directory services (working as a print server/ Account authentication (among others) I just didn't want to go to the trouble of after buying a new hardware, have to do the migration to windows server 2008, and expend all that money in OS and cal. and yes i charged then a whole lot more money for this setup than what i would for the Microsoft setup. (without the migration) it took me a whole month on my site to go through the process flawlessly, and a lot of reading. A lot.But even like this, the final cost was a less than half of what it would cost with the exchange setup.and i also know another place that did the same, a hospital with around 1,300 users.[/citation]

Just proves me wrong that it is almost impossible to move a complete Microsoft infrastructure to a Linux one lol. I did a 'school stage'(don't know what you call that in english) at an hospital with less users. They were running NT and 2000 as servers, and were talking about migrating to 2003 when I left. But that hospital were running alot of homebrew applications running on Windows. Payroll and hospital database apps mostly. I only have simple technician knowledge, but I really doubt a move to a Linux based server would have been possible. A move to Linux workstations sure could not.
 
[citation][nom]n3ard3ath[/nom]Just proves me wrong that it is almost impossible to move a complete Microsoft infrastructure to a Linux one lol. I did a 'school stage'(don't know what you call that in english) at an hospital with less users. They were running NT and 2000 as servers, and were talking about migrating to 2003 when I left. But that hospital were running alot of homebrew applications running on Windows. Payroll and hospital database apps mostly. I only have simple technician knowledge, but I really doubt a move to a Linux based server would have been possible. A move to Linux workstations sure could not.[/citation]

I agree 800% with you here..
in the hospital that i'm talking what they upgrade was their messaging system
from exchange 5.5 to postpath. instead of exchange 2003 or 2007

and actually what you say is very true, even thought a partial move could be possible but them it would become a mess.

in a hospital there are a lot of application to be run.
even thought there are pretty good EMR/EHR system for linux.
Electronic Medical Record / Electronic Health Record.


There are also Strong Practice Management System and Enterprise Practice management solution for Linux.

but
most of the best LIS (Lab information system) that i know, run on windows.
there are a few for linux, pretty good, but those are open source. What mean, not support if the application give you a mayor glicht.

the good in the application in the hospital or medical if that you could have 300 (mac, windows, linux, unix,beos) and the software would still communicate.

 
[citation][nom]aracheb[/nom]I agree 800% with you here..in the hospital that i'm talking what they upgrade was their messaging system from exchange 5.5 to postpath. instead of exchange 2003 or 2007and actually what you say is very true, even thought a partial move could be possible but them it would become a mess.in a hospital there are a lot of application to be run.even thought there are pretty good EMR/EHR system for linux. Electronic Medical Record / Electronic Health Record. There are also Strong Practice Management System and Enterprise Practice management solution for Linux. butmost of the best LIS (Lab information system) that i know, run on windows. there are a few for linux, pretty good, but those are open source. What mean, not support if the application give you a mayor glicht. the good in the application in the hospital or medical if that you could have 300 (mac, windows, linux, unix,beos) and the software would still communicate.[/citation]

I'm not surprised at all you confirm me the move in the hopistal was made on the messaging system only. To me, the problem with EMR/EHR systems is that it needs constant support, updates and developping, so for exemple, where I 'worked', they had their own developpement team of programmers working on improving and monitoring the software in the hospital itself. So if the application is Windows based, there's no change in hell the hospital will make a move there. A linux EMR/EHR system got to be implemented when the hospital is put into operation from day one, else no administration in hell will make a move like that, unless the Microsoft paltform just dies lol...

I totally agree on an unified network and database layer for all hospital softwares there is on each platform. Hospitals are a federal and social matter, so mediums that can't operate between themselfs make no sense.
 
From my experience Linux runs smoothly on just about anything. I have a 300mhz pc that runs linux only because XP would be too much of a bog on it. My linux distro is Knoppix, and it gets the job done which is internet surfing and storage. The advantage of linux is it's small form factor, you can even run the OS from a live CD without even installing on the computer. Course linux is also only good for web surfing and simple text editing. things like gaming, high end pro software like adobe, linux will be out of luck. But you can run it on primitive low end hardware that can't run a windows version of anything newer than 98.

Apple OSX makes it's money from it's hardware so OS upgrades are really cheap. I upgraded my g4 from panther all the way to leopard and each osx version keeps adding new and better features. Plus apple isn't very strict on licensing so when I purchased my Leopard copy, i was able to upgrade 3 computers on the same disk. Granted they don't want you to do that, but it's not like they have spywares and security apps running everytime to you log in to send hardware specs to the corporate site just to check to make sure your following the rules or threaten to shut you down because you transfered your hardrive from one computer to another.

Windows will always be there, especially on any store bought computer. Nobody buys the OS by itself, for one thing, it's expensive and its usually better to upgrade the computer along with the OS. With so many versions of windows out, they want you to buy the most expensive version but figure they could throw you a bone by having you buy a cheaper version with missing features and hoping that you will want to upgrade like they expected you to do in the first place. The real enemies of microsoft? will be the home built PC community. Choosing which windows version will play a major role in the home-made budget. Questions like, do i want to go with Window's gaming version, or will i get more features out of the business version but what if I do both, then i need to upgrade to the dual version. What about hosting a web page from my pc? then I'll need to buy the server edition that also has the business aspects and the gaming aspects into that version. By the time you're done you could almost spend 1/2 the cost of your PC just in the OS license!
 
Not quite sure why people are bitching here. No one is being forced to change OS. If you like what you currently have and don't want the new windows then fine.

To the people complaining about stability and bugs in windows. You obviously haven't used a MS operating system since Windows ME as win2k, XP and onwards have been incredibly stable and issue free (hence people sticking with XP). Granted vista wasn't a hit but please remember that over 60% of crashes in it were caused by nVidia drivers and a good portion of the remaining 40% was other 3rd party driver failures. MS isn't responsible for creating drivers for every device on the planet.

As for the interface changes I'm glad MS is tinkering with it. I don't want to use my computer the same way I did 10 years ago. Computers are about rapid change and a lot of the posters here seem to be very frightened about it. I say bring on windows 7, MS surface, and hopefully space thrusters for my desktop! (note: will switch to linux for space thrusters)
 
There should only be 1 OS version, configurable.
MS could simply lower the price on their software, and use a 'service' model, per call. Their student pricing isn't half bad. 60 dollars for Office Enterprise for enrolled students.
 
Student pricing is one of the tactics envisioned to lock the future lusers and their employers in their crappy products.
If you get to read a (former) student CV, with almost absolute certainity you'll find "proficiency" in: windoze, office, exploder, lookout and eventually other m$ "products".
 
ahhh cmon you angry motherf###%&/ relax and lets get the damn thing released....vista is not that bad any more, it was bad to start with but just about every old programe i throw at it plays without hiches.....and in these hexa core days who wants win98 and xp anymore.

Lets see what microsoft has in store regarding pricing this will be interesting since open software is at the pickin and pirates are at bay.
Higt price makes people into ninjas/pirates
low prices makes people want to support your product.
 
ahhh cmon you angry motherf###%&/ relax and lets get the damn thing released....vista is not that bad any more, it was bad to start with but just about every old programe i throw at it plays without hiches.....and in these hexa core days who wants win98 and xp anymore.

Lets see what microsoft has in store regarding pricing this will be interesting since open software is at the pickin and pirates are at bay.
Higt price makes people into ninjas/pirates
low prices makes people want to support your product.
 
To those simpletons complaining about the 4 program max restriction, I have the solution....


... don't buy the version of Windows 7 that has that restriction (DUH)
 
Is there any information about the price to upgrade from one version of Windows 7 to another? How much for the jump from Home Premium to Professional or to Ultimate? How much to jump from Pro to Ultimate?

Thanks!
 
Lots of talk here about different operating systems the substance which suggests few have vetured outside of the Microsoft paradigm. Many of you would find a free operating system provided more than everything you need.
Example: Puppy Linux.A complete operating system with suite of GUI apps, only about 50 - 95MB and boots directly off the CDROM. Open Office,firefox or your choice of web browser, Photo Shop quality Image Editor, media players ... VIRUS FREE INTERNET ACCESS. Puppy can even rescue files from your dead windows boxx!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom