Windows 7 - upgrade chart

[ToastyCheesy]

Hm, actually...you said you tried the beta, correct? How is Windows 7 anyway? I'm kind of thinking about it, if it gets rid of/fixes what made Vista annoying. Mostly because there is an app or two I have that would benefit from DirectX10 (such as PCSX2).

I'm fulltime running Windows 7 on all my computers. The main ones at least. I'm left with a low-low end emachine celeron to use until I can get my laptop replaced. it CLAIMS to be vista ready..... oh no, don't even try. it even came with stock 512MB ram.... I upgraded it to 2GB and the cpu still lagged too much for comfort in vista. Windows 7 is definitely faster, and far more compatible with my system. The ui is more consistent, Explorer shortcuts are useful, I think Microsoft got it right this time around.

 

[The 9th Sage]

I'm fulltime running Windows 7 on all my computers. The main ones at least. I'm left with a low-low end emachine celeron to use until I can get my laptop replaced. it CLAIMS to be vista ready..... oh no, don't even try. it even came with stock 512MB ram.... I upgraded it to 2GB and the cpu still lagged too much for comfort in vista. Windows 7 is definitely faster, and far more compatible with my system. The ui is more consistent, Explorer shortcuts are useful, I think Microsoft got it right this time around.

So, from what you all are saying, it IS really what Vista should've been. I'll have to look into it. It's too bad it's so expensive. I know that it's an OS, but jeez.

 

[shawn]

So, from what you all are saying, it IS really what Vista should've been. I'll have to look into it. It's too bad it's so expensive. I know that it's an OS, but jeez.

An OS should cost $100 max. You can get linux in the stores for less than $50 multi CD installs so you should be able to get windows for $100. Sure would virtually stop the piracy they whine about and get a lot more people to consider upgrading. Besides the big computer manufacturers Dell and such only pay around 30 to 40 dollars for what you pay an arm and a leg for. I'ld like to see the EU get on MS's ass for that. I know you should get a discount for buying in bulk but me paying 500% or more than what some big name business pays is not only ridiculous but immoral reaming the little guy.

 

[VT-Vincent]

An OS should cost $100 max. You can get linux in the stores for less than $50 multi CD installs so you should be able to get windows for $100. Sure would virtually stop the piracy they whine about and get a lot more people to consider upgrading. Besides the big computer manufacturers Dell and such only pay around 30 to 40 dollars for what you pay an arm and a leg for. I'ld like to see the EU get on MS's ass for that. I know you should get a discount for buying in bulk but me paying 500% or more than what some big name business pays is not only ridiculous but immoral reaming the little guy.

Microsoft actually has made a lot of progress in the pricing of their OSes, particularly with Windows 7. A few weeks back, there was actually an offer where you could pre-order Home Premium for $49.99 and Professional for $99.99. They also will be introducing a family pack similar to what Apple does for users with multiple computers.

In the end though, I think it's Microsoft's right to set the price to whatever they please - it's their product. At the same time, I as a consumer also have the right not to buy their product and use an alternative. I think a lot of the litigation against Microsoft has really just penalized them for their success. Look at OS X, Apple bundles their own media store, browser and multiple other applications AND they lock their users in to their hardware. The powers that be in the US and EU have had nothing to say about this just due to one basic reason - they have not had the same commercial success as Microsoft.

 

[Fla Flash]

An OS should cost $100 max. You can get linux in the stores for less than $50 multi CD installs so you should be able to get windows for $100. Sure would virtually stop the piracy they whine about and get a lot more people to consider upgrading. Besides the big computer manufacturers Dell and such only pay around 30 to 40 dollars for what you pay an arm and a leg for. I'ld like to see the EU get on MS's ass for that. I know you should get a discount for buying in bulk but me paying 500% or more than what some big name business pays is not only ridiculous but immoral reaming the little guy.

Not for nothing, but with still a majority of apps being released for Windows over the Mac OS's, coming out with a new OS every two or three years that you threaten to stop supporting (see Vista release/XP warning) when a new one comes out seems like Gestapo tactics to me.

Especially when the damned things are over a hundred bucks...

Somebody, (a professional repairman, no less) once commented about the Windows OS's,
"if it doesn't have PRO on the end, it's not finished".

Heh.

In the end though, I think it's Microsoft's right to set the price to whatever they please - it's their product. At the same time, I as a consumer also have the right not to buy their product and use an alternative. I think a lot of the litigation against Microsoft has really just penalized them for their success. Look at OS X, Apple bundles their own media store, browser and multiple other applications AND they lock their users in to their hardware. The powers that be in the US and EU have had nothing to say about this just due to one basic reason - they have not had the same commercial success as Microsoft.

While I agree with some of what you said (I'm a Mac fan and I don't like everything they do) Microsoft usually rushes to release their 'next' OS and end up in kind of a mess. I don't like paying for the privelige of being a "lab rat". If I'm spending $100 on an os, it better goddamn work.

And not need to be updated every couple of weeks.

 

[Lillymon]

While I agree with some of what you said (I'm a Mac fan and I don't like everything they do) Microsoft usually rushes to release their 'next' OS and end up in kind of a mess. I don't like paying for the privelige of being a "lab rat". If I'm spending $100 on an os, it better goddamn work.

And not need to be updated every couple of weeks.

You do seem to be looking for an OS that doesn't need security and stability updates every week or so, but you're never going to find one because that's not how software works. Software has bugs, the bugs result in security and stability problems, the updates fix them. Until the day that programmers become superhuman beings that don't make mistakes, we will need these patches to remain somewhat secure.

 

[InVerse]

In Fla Flash's defense, he comes from an era where computer security meant locking your punch cards in a desk drawer before leaving the lab.

 

[VT-Vincent]

While I agree with some of what you said (I'm a Mac fan and I don't like everything they do) Microsoft usually rushes to release their 'next' OS and end up in kind of a mess. I don't like paying for the privelige of being a "lab rat". If I'm spending $100 on an os, it better goddamn work.

And not need to be updated every couple of weeks.

This is a tough one. As mentioned before, security necessitates frequent updates but I do see where you're coming from. I think it's important to take into account whether the company that creates the software has taken reasonable steps to ensure proactive security based on a general overview of the threats available rather than directly judge them by the number of updates that are released.

An example of this is Windows XP - it is arguably the most insecure consumer OS ever created. It has seen more exploits than any other version of Windows in history and still to this day continues to be insecure due to it's architecture. That OS was built in a different time, in a time when nobody saw a problem with leaving a computer on a broadband connection directly connected to the internet with no firewall in place. Security was obviously a secondary concern in it's design and that's largely Microsoft's fault for not seeing the changing climate and adapting the OS to suit it.

Fast forward to Vista/7. Both operating systems were made in today's era where security concerns as well known and they are now the primary concern when designing pretty much any type of software. While Microsoft has taken steps to solve these issues from lessons learned in the past, I don't think they have gone nearly far enough. In realty, we're still on the same architecture we were back in XP's era (and even it's predecessors) and all they've really done is apply a few band-aids.

In the end, I think Windows needs a fundamental change in architecture to really combat these issues. That's something that could take a very long time to create and also cause a lot of "growing pains" for anyone switching over. If things continue as they do, we'll have no option but to have updates applied this frequently and even then they will not be secure. Just think about how many people actually work on the security side of Windows vs. how many people are out there trying to discover new exploits. With those numbers, I think any company would have a difficult time to say the least.

 

[Isildur]

In Fla Flash's defense, he comes from an era where computer security meant locking your punch cards in a desk drawer before leaving the lab.

That reminds me, my father once described to me how back in the early and mid 60s, when he used computers for some classes and internships, there were ladies at the labs with whom you would drop off your program, and whose job it was to manage the scheduling of the jobs, feed the cards into the machine, and file the output for you to come back later and pick up. If I recall correctly, he said those ladies were often black, because in those days most other secretarial/clerical-type jobs at universities and large companies were closed to black women; that job was an exception.

 

[Fla Flash]

In Fla Flash's defense, he comes from an era where computer security meant locking your punch cards in a desk drawer before leaving the lab.

Uh, desk drawer locks hadn't been invented yet. We just put no trespassing signs on the door and made sure the power was turned off.

You do seem to be looking for an OS that doesn't need security and stability updates every week or so, but you're never going to find one because that's not how software works. Software has bugs, the bugs result in security and stability problems, the updates fix them. Until the day that programmers become superhuman beings that don't make mistakes, we will need these patches to remain somewhat secure.

I dunno about that...I guess I am more patient with Linux because they're all advertised as builds, not a finished product.

An example of this is Windows XP - it is arguably the most insecure consumer OS ever created.

Hehheh. You've never heard of Windows ME, apparently.

 

[VT-Vincent]

Hehheh. You've never heard of Windows ME, apparently.

Due to the progressive nature of software development, any previous versions are likely to be less secure. They weren't however as exploited - when the security issue really exploded, XP held the largest share of the market and as such it was the most targeted.