MSFT: Windows 7 is Fastest Selling OS of All Time

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.
"In fact, the company boasts that this Windows platform is flying off the shelves faster than any other operating system."

Gee I wouldn't have guessed that Windows is selling faster than OSX, since it's basically the only other mainstream OS you can buy off the shelf. Microsoft is proclaiming the expected as though it's some glorious victory.
 
I want to remind people XP was once derided as nothing more than a bloated version 2000, and it still is. It basically took many features of Windows ME and grafted them on to the NT core. Even then, it took a couple years for it to mature on top of what was a mature kernel.

Window 7 is Vista with some windows dressing, incremental improvement and that's it. Most benchmarks will tell you that.

Bravo Microsoft for pulling the "New Coke" trick and getting people to pay for what could have been a service pack.
 
@Stardude: I won't disagree with you on your point. Still for a few ignorant (as in, not so interested) people in this thread, I'll explain the reasons behind your comment.

Windows 2000 was available only as 'Professional' and 'Server' (x3) editions - not Home. Windows Me was in development and came out roughly at the same time, and included the 'family' features: system restore, system files lockdown, an advanced media player and a basic movie maker. It was still DOS-based, but the command line mode had been removed.

As an enterprise-only edition, Windows 2000 saw no feature upgrades during its active support lifetime: changing that would have led to enterprise problems.

Windows XP (RTM, SP1) had two very specific editions: there were kernel and network differences between the 'pro' and 'home' editions only (no 'server'); meaning that features could be improved, and perfect binary compatibility was not as much of a requirement from patch to patch (that's an enterprise server requirement, not so much for the desktop).

Due to Windows XP's original codebase being mostly Win2000's with extra sprinkles (ACPI and power management were also better refined in XP), security was a definite concern. This is why Jim Allchin managed to convince Bill Gates to give away a new OS to existing customers, due to how late Longhorn was getting: at first, there was supposed to be a 'Windows XP 2003 edition' or 'XP 2' that one had to pay for, and that would contain only security enhancements over 'original' XP. Instead of that, Windows XP SP2 was the result of a massive code audit, and for the first time ever, contained real new features and an API upgrade to an existing product. This was marketing-based: customers wouldn't understand why they had to pay for a security upgrade. Just imagine: 'Windows XP 2: no new features, no higher power requirements, Just Safer. $100' is not a good marketing message - especially with OEMs.

SP2 basically contained a half-rewritten kernel (now common to both 'Home' and 'Pro' editions), recompiled/fixed binaries (for NX support), a 'new' IE (IE6 got a popup blocker and ActiveX warnings), updated DirectX (9 instead of 8), and the Security Center - but no GUI improvement, apart from a very basic GUI for the already existing firewall (which is actually much more powerful than it looks like, but you can't configure it). It also had the same, if not a lower, memory footprint than before.

Now, and that's where some people are a bit unhappy with Win7 but get it anyway, is that it's indeed 'Vista done right': a lifted up but basically identical core with extra sprinkles. Like XP (original) to 2000.

I think I'll stay on Linux for a while yet.
 
"MSFT: Windows 7 is Fastest Selling OS of All Time"

They said the same thing about Vista, XP, 95, etc... It is what Microsoft PR people are paid to do. That and never release any actual sales figures.

Where is that Republican senator("You lie!") when you need him.

This is not to disparage Win7 as it is actually a decent product.

It is just ridiculous to see this same old Microsoft press release every time they release a new product. They can either put up some actual numbers or shut up. I vote for the latter since they obviously have no clue about marketing. They should hire the pothole lady.
 
[citation][nom]naterandrews[/nom]Although I don't like Microsoft I have to give them kudos on "7".It is fast, stable, and rock-solid. Running 7 Ultimate right now and it is a good OS, and far more intuitive than any other version of Windows before it. With Microsoft lowering the upgrade and full version prices of "7" compared to Vistas' previous pricing schemes, tossing in discounts for students and families with "home bundles", and giving a wider-birth of usage for RC users, its likely that we will see Windows 7 overshadow XP in terms of popularity.[/citation]I can get it to crash, that blu-ray burner I bought doesn't like "CD's" with small chunks of data on it. It reads them slow as HELL. Kind of the drives problem but still, it'll crash explorer when I try to cancel the transfer. And yes, my install is clean.
 
[citation][nom]dogofwars[/nom]For the OEM one, if I choose to install it on another computer am I screwed??[/citation]
I have done this loads of times on every OS they have made, when the automatic activation fails you ring the freephone line and do manual activation, stating that your motherboard fried in a powercut (or similar hypothetical fubar scenario) and you are trying to install on your new motherboard. You generate a new ID number and they read back a number for you to input and your are now activated. Bingo!!!
 
[citation][nom]tlmck[/nom]They can either put up some actual numbers or shut up. I vote for the latter since they obviously have no clue about marketing. They should hire the pothole lady.[/citation]
Microsoft aren't the largest software company in the world, are they? Their marketing is obviously rubbish isn't it.

/sarcasm
 
can t understad how people that see Vista as crap think 7 is paradise. Both are almost the same and none includes relevant innovation over XP, in fact, xp still runs faster. UI is really ugly and useless in some aspects. Having a 26" LCD and losing 3" due to a GIANT-ENORMOUS HALF-MAC-LIKE taskbar when on the browser side there is a search for a clean interface trying to maximize content area and minimize buttons seems absurd.
 
Buy the upgrade version of Win7 and hack the registry for full version. It takes 5 minutes and will save you a couple of bucks. Spend the couple of bucks on an SSD. You'll be glad you did.
 
[citation][nom]estebanhillcoat[/nom]can t understad how people that see Vista as crap think 7 is paradise. Both are almost the same and none includes relevant innovation over XP, in fact, xp still runs faster. UI is really ugly and useless in some aspects. Having a 26" LCD and losing 3" due to a GIANT-ENORMOUS HALF-MAC-LIKE taskbar when on the browser side there is a search for a clean interface trying to maximize content area and minimize buttons seems absurd.[/citation]
On my last PC my Windows XP was slower than Windows 98, but I won't be going back to that any time soon. It ran slower because it used more system resources and no one complained because it did more.

Roll forward to 2010 and Windows 7 does more than Windows XP. Deal with it.
 
[citation][nom]Dawntreader[/nom]First off, why would you not want things arranged by name and or date? i love how i dont have to refresh to get win explorer to put things a to z. but if you dont like that, then right click and choose clear changes. the auto arrange gets turned off. and if you are trying to keep a certain folder in a certain place on screen in win Explorer, just name them in a fasion that will keep the ones you want in a certain place in that place. for instance if you want to sort folders with a certain folder at the top of the list give it a 01 at the front. this will keep it at the top. it seems kind of ridiculous to me that this would be a reason that you dont like windows 7, when there are far more benifiets that totally outweight this one thing.[/citation]

Heres the problem, if I wanted to move a folder/picture/document in XP, I didn't need to rename it, etc, all I had to do was drag it to a new location. Renaming them would be easy with just a few files but a real pain in the butt with a few thousand files. I believe I mentioned in my original post that sure windows 7 has a plethora of ways to auto arrange files, but no way to turn auto arrange completely off and allow me to drag the files to where ever I want them... as oppsed to where the auto arrange wants them, as is possible in XP. Since I work with 1000's of photos yes this is a big problem for me, when I want to arrange things to fit my fancy not have Windows 7 dictate where my files "must" go. For instance if I wanted a slideshow to show in a particular order all I needed to do in XP was drag the files into the order I perferred, to me thats alot easier than renaming all the files to accomplish the same task.
 
http://www.simplehelp.net/2006/10/11/10-windows-explorer-alternatives-compared-and-reviewed/

15 alternatives to the Windows Explorer, 5 of which are free.
Took all of 30 seconds to find this page, image how many more you could find if you weren't so lazy you could only be bothered to complain about Microsoft instead of using Google to find them...
 
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]http://www.simplehelp.net/2006/10/ [...] -reviewed/15 alternatives to the Windows Explorer, 5 of which are free.Took all of 30 seconds to find this page, image how many more you could find if you weren't so lazy you could only be bothered to complain about Microsoft instead of using Google to find them...[/citation]

Well, MS fanboy, people who buy an OS shouldn't have to immediately go looking for a replacement to its arguably most important program, the file explorer. There is also the absurd removal of the classic start menu on W7. I'm sticking with XP Pro here even though I'll be missing on some stuff my current hardware already supports (DX 10/11, etc.), and skip W7Crap like I did with VistaCrap.

 
[citation][nom]Ephebus[/nom]Well, MS fanboy, people who buy an OS shouldn't have to immediately go looking for a replacement to its arguably most important program, the file explorer.[/citation]
I don't have a problem with the file explorer in Windows, above entries do however saying they cannot switch off auto-arrange. My ire was directed at them for pissing and moaning instead of looking for ways to fix it.
 
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]I don't have a problem with the file explorer in Windows, above entries do however saying they cannot switch off auto-arrange. My ire was directed at them for pissing and moaning instead of looking for ways to fix it.[/citation]

Thats the great thing about Windows or Linux.... If something does not work the way you want it to, just find a tool to do it the way you want it done.

Also if this person handles thousands of photo's a day I would imagine that something designed for the task would be much better anyway.

http://picasa.google.com/

This thing is great for doing almost anything some one would want to do with photographs under XP/Vista/7.

I imagine half of these people that complain about the way something works are running Firefox too....

Now when it comes to managing my files on my iPod don't get me started... lol took me weeks to figure out how to get it working the way I wanted too (I must be iPod dyslexic or something) and since I have one of the newer ones its not compatible with Rockbox.

 
[citation][nom]Ephebus[/nom] I'm sticking with XP Pro here even though I'll be missing on some stuff my current hardware already supports (DX 10/11, etc.), and skip W7Crap like I did with VistaCrap.[/citation]
Somehow I don't think skipping Win 7 will bring back the classic start menu. Although it's something that should never have been removed IMO, not that I ever used it.
 
2. As for me, Win 7 has changed my life. It is a turning point for humanity.

hahah... good one
seruously tho. 7 rocks. i'm having it since beta and I switched to retail as soon as it went gold.

MS did a good job... maybe too good.
 
[citation][nom]razorblaze42[/nom]Open my documents, or pictures and just try dragging any file to another location within that folder, windows 7 won't allow it, because it set to autoarrange all files and folders. In XP I could easily move a file/folder/picture into whatever order I wanted.... its annoying as hell[/citation]

Libraries are not real folders but actually files containing path links to the files/folders.
You can do anything you want if you manipulate the files/folders from their actual places such as c:\users\[your user name]\My documents.

 
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]I don't have a problem with the file explorer in Windows, above entries do however saying they cannot switch off auto-arrange. My ire was directed at them for pissing and moaning instead of looking for ways to fix it.[/citation]

You wrongly assumed I hadn't looked for a way to disable the auto arrange in windows 7, I have Sir. There's no way to fix it, I only hope Microsoft addresses the issue in SP1.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom