Windows 7 Initial Sales Blast Past Windows Vista

[cookoy]

it's easier to decide if your choices are Vista vs Windows 7 than if your choices are XP vs Vista. If you have a PC capable of running Vista, then it should be capable of running Windows 7. Unlike before, if you have a PC running XP, it may not be able to run Vista adequately. So before, it was not only a decision to upgrade an OS. You have to consider whether you have to upgrade the hardware too.
Then to make things worse for Vista, you started getting all the bad reviews. For Windows 7 the reviews were quite positive even before the product launched.

 

[theuerkorn]

I upgraded the week of release (Windows 7 x64). With all the hype I was expecting "great" things, but got strongly reminded that even reviewers are somewhat blinded by "new" stuff. Upgrade went well though, and the very few incompatibilities compared to my previous Vista x64 also show that changes ARE indeed somewhat minor.

So really, Windows 7 may have a lot advantage under the hood (i.e. graphics routine implementation), but interface improvements fall short. The task bar is great, thanks, after decades on NeXt and OS-X we now get to enjoy a type dock as well. Yet, it's still room for improvement. (Think about being a frequent user of 10 - 20 programs and try to pin them all to the task bar ... without the ability to group them!) Other than that, what's soooo different from Vista that couldn't have been accomplished in SP3? (Yes, jump lists and libraries, which are good but I have not missed them before.)

 

[Johnsquare]

thanks for the heads up theuerkorn....

 

[mitch074]

@theuerkorn: and that's why I don't feel like ditching my tux for Win7. Had it been really great, yeah; as it is, it is great compared with Vista, and is new compared with XP.

Compared with anything else out there (be it a recent Linux distribution, or OS X - heck, even Solaris), it looks (sorry, folks, that's my humble opinion) marginally innovative and not really well thought out.

Is it worth the cost? If you're not using Windows, not at all. If you're doing well with your present Windows version (security and application-wise), not really. If you can get it with a hefty rebate, all right. If you're buying a new computer with 7 installed on it, go for it.

Since I build my own 'puters and change pieces of hardware frequently, I can't go OEM; since I manage several users per machine and like to mount shares where I like them, I need at least a Pro version; since I practice the UNIX tenet of not allowing a user to do what he doesn't have to, I really need a Pro version (other versions don't allow you to set file authorizations outside of the Users directory); since I spend a lot of time online, I need a safe, fast web browser (so IE is out; even 8). What games I play are OpenGL-friendly.

Do I need to spend $300 or $400 for a Pro or Ultimate retail full version, to browse the Web and play a few games, if I can do the same for (at worst) $50 for a support plan on any distribution, or (at best) $0 to do things by myself?

Sorry folks, eventhough 7 sells fast, I won't be getting one.

 

[warezme]

yea, tux dude, (mitch074) linux is great and all that but you not only build your own puter but you have built yourself into your own box. A box that will never likely support modern hardware like high end video cards and a long list of other high end devices with modern drivers. Good luck with that.

 

[igot1forya]

They need a Windows 7 Ultimate - Family Pack!

 

[beergoggles]

@Igot1forya

I agree. But they do have the anytime upgrade option. So you can get the 3 Home Prems and upgrade computers individually as needed when needed. Definitely a cool way to manage upgrading multiple machines.

 

[zengrath]

"Windows 7 sales have also brought in 82 more revenue than Windows Vista"

I'm sorry but if the writers of these articles don't have 1 minutes to review stuff they type and make corrections, i sure heck am not going to trust any of information in rest of the article, did author put together this article in under 1 minute as well? or was research actually done?

 

[masop]

[citation][nom]Exodite[/nom]I agree with lutel. We've seen some W7 vs. Vista performance reviews but the real question is 32bit XP vs. 64bit W7 as that's the real upgrade path for the majority of users, including enthusiasts.[/citation]

I agree. I went from XP Pro x86 (32-bit) to 7 Ultimate x64 (64-bit). For me, the benefits are clear...

1) Architecture / Platform Upgrade, going from 32-bit to 64-bit support.
Seeing that I've been running my system on x64 hardware for years,
the o/s finally matches the hardware.
2) Greater memory support, automatically giving me an extra 512MB of
system memory that I didn't previously have access to, for a total of
4GB out of 4GB installed currently. I will be adding additional
memory in the near future.
3) DirectX 10, 10.1 and 11 support for gaming. I was running a DX9 card
at first, but recently upgraded to a DX 10.1 card (4870 1GB) now I'm
able to fully utilize the cards DX abilities with the newer games
under 7.
4) Excellent baseline application compatibility, and that doesn't even
put the XP Mode (Virtualization) into consideration. I didn't
need to utilize it for my apps. I did have to wait for about 6-8 for
an x64 version of one of my apps before I could even install it due
to a mirror driver that wouldn't install. This was resolved a week
before the 10/22 launch.

My only complaints will likely be resolved in time as updates for some of my apps and drivers (sound blaster) come out and patches resolve the "quirks" in regards to running properly under 7 x64.

As for gaming, I've got no problem with most of the games I used to play on XP, except 1 which installs but won't run. That game being S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Clear Sky. It won't allow me to load a saved game or start a new one. I'm waiting for a patch for the game to be released so I can play it again. :-(

The 2 issues I have with the o/s itself are random reboots (memory management bsod) which have happened 3 or 4 times since the end of July and the fact that when attempting to view the windows event logs (system, app, security), the service craps out and it requires a reboot to access them again. This is definitely an o/s problem that should be addressed by a patch or SP likely in 2010. Anyways, that is my 2 cents. Thanks for reading. 🙂

 

[Johnsquare]

Can i comment on the benefits? =)
1) 64-bit architecture upgrade, from my experience, many people don't need an upgrade, especially office work. (how about not upgrading software?)
2) greater system support... this is the only reason i shifted in 64-bit
3) directx10... this is just for gamers(non-essential?), eyecandy is not needed for businesses (essential)
4) baseline compatibility... what can be more compatible than winXP?

Am i missing something here?

 

[wildwell]

The price of 7 now is only slightly less than Vista was, and Vista came it out when consumer spending was great. Microsoft's marketing machine appears to be working!

 

[Guest]

Johnsquare so hows windows 3 goin' for you? =P

 

[mitch074]

@warezme: what 'high end hardware'? Modern video cards? My RadeonHD 4850 was recognized, supported, installed, configured and fragging the day it came out (driver was released a week in advance). RadeonHD 5xxx are supported too. Driver releases are synchronous at both Nvidia and AMD websites. X supports multiple inputs and touchscreens (you have yet to be able to plug two keyboards in and have them dissociated in Windows). AMD's Hydravision was first demoed on a Linux box.

Outside graphics cards, Linux supports as many cores as you may want (current distributions are built with support for 32 CPUs, but you can build a kernel with up to 1024 cores support). Mobo chipsets are supported before they come out (what about AHCI support in Windows XP?). USB 3.0 is supported in current distros (eventhough no hardware is available). RAM support was never limited to 3.2 Gb, even in 32-bit mode (PAE). NX was supported system-wide even before it existed on x86 processors (it was present on Alphas).

What's left? Hard disk drives? RAID? Blu-ray drives? Network adapters? Printers? Scans? Joysticks? Well, all the ones I've tried work - Wifi included (in fact, I usually use Linux to analyze network antennas for people that can't use it with Windows - strangely enough, a Linux wi-fi connection doesn't drop out just because it feels like it). Power management is rather good: both my CG and processors dynamically change frequence depending on load (even in 3D mode), data lines shut down when not in use, disk drives LEDs don't flash constantly when the system is idle, and XvMC works.

So, pray tell: with storage, processors, word length, memory size, power saving, graphics adapters, video acceleration, networking, inputs, printing and graphics taken out of the equation, what "high-end hardware" are we talking about?

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Not surprised, I've been helping co-workers upgrade from XP and Vista moreso that either of those two previously.

 

[AtuBrian]

windows 7 owns vista

 

[gravitygirl]

It's gotta be easier to coax someone into jumping from a sinking ship (Vista to Win7) than it was to convince someone to jump from a fine ship to one that looked a little different (XP to Vista).

What confuses me about this "grand migration" is I'm not seeing some tech shift here in Win7, just a sprinkle of minor tweaks, a name change, and then of course charging me retail prices for what should be my Vista Service Pack 3.