Good intentions won't sell Windows 7
Microsoft's launch party videos have proven to be entertaining to viewers even if not for the reasons for the marketing department had hoped for. There were a great many comments on my post that provided context to their release, but generally speaking most industry-watchers have been confused as to the goals behind the program, questioning the target audience not just for the videos, but for the launch parties as well.
I reached out to Microsoft for comment but they withheld at this time as the videos are apparently just one step in a much larger integrated marketing campaign.
I personally found the most recent video weird, but after thinking through things a bit I think this is a case of a good idea hampered by poor execution. The videos are well-done and professional and try to connect with consumers in a humanistic tone. The fact that it feels like you stumbled into a shiny-happy Windows world filled with sit-com throwaways is the problem. Even if this is a training video to show others how to throw a launch party, it's hard to connect with the vapid characterizations of party guests.
This is the crux of Microsoft's marketing problems. It's not that they aren't good at technical marketing issues, it's that the brand itself is so voluminous, it's very hard for people to connect to specific products like Windows. And the efforts to persuade consumers isolate the tech media and confuse IT shops.
One of the biggest issues Windows Vista faced was consumer confusion as to why they should buy an upgrade at all. Microsoft did a very poor job of communicating why anyone should care and added such a complicated set of offerings that people simply couldn't figure out what to buy. (Note that Windows 7 also has a very complicated pricing scheme.)
Right now, the Windows brand doesn't have a huge amount of momentum behind it, even if Microsoft itself and Bing do. Getting momentum behind Windows 7, regardless of the methodology should be Microsoft's main goal right now. And the company is pulling out all the stops, from commercials to launch parties to getting the OS out into the channel sooner than retail, it is trying to gain back the lost mind-share.
The challenge is that companies like Apple, with a significantly smaller share of the operating system market, have developed such sophisticated and stylized marketing, that Microsoft has a very hard time competing with the overall effect. So, Microsoft has instead gone after the mythical "every-man" (or every-man, woman and racial/gender/ethnically diverse party in the world), which falls way short for we Valley media types that will mock anything and everything.
But the target customer for Windows 7 may actually like the experience of a launch party simply because it humanizes the operating system and allows them to ask silly questions like how to burn a CD. These were not made for sophisticated tech buyers and that may not be a bad thing.
The point is that PC manufacturers need people to buy more computers and really only Microsoft can make that happen until vendors (and consumers) embrace Linux or switch to Macs.
In the meantime, check out another party video where your grandparents and their friends drink lemonade and edit photos. Seriously.
Dave Rosenberg dishes up "Software, Interrupted" with nearly 15 years of technology and marketing experience that spans from Bell Labs to multiple start-up IPOs to open-source enterprise software companies. He is co-founder of MuleSource and currently serves as the general manager of Hardy Way. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can contact Dave via e-mail at softwareinterrupted@gmail.com or follow him on Twitter @daveofdoom. 
What I did notice was that Windows 7 is the NSA's most comprehensive Spyware Platform to date..
Thats why Russia, France, China, Cuba and most other Countries are moving to Open Source for Security!
Thats why Microsoft needs to scare you off of XP
Thats why Outgoing Data is not blocked by default in the firewall
Thats why antiviruses like AVG were rewritten to prevent you from blocking Internet access by programs on your computer like Firefox for example!
(You no longer get popups from your firewall asking if you want firefox and other programs to connect to the Internet - they just connect without your OK)
Thats why encryption programs rewritten for Vista and Windows 7 give you no indication of trouble yet trusted encryption programs give you warning that the contents of RAM are being copied to your hard drive ONLY after you open an encrypted disk and thereby compromising your encryption key which was located in RAM.
Thats why Windows 7 runs to the Internet to find a solution to the problem listed above after rebooting from a bluescreen! To aquire your encryption keys!
Download Drivecrypt 4.0 from 2cows if you doubt me and test it yourself. DC-4.0 Installs correctly without errors, creates an encrypted volume without errors and only Bluescreens AFTER your encryption key is in RAM and can be copied to your hard drive to be transferred accross the Internet the next time you have Net access!
Thats why Windows 7 can send your wireless network encryption key accross the Internet as well as your disk encryption keys stated above.
By transferring your wireless encryption key without your knowledge, local authorities can access your wireless network and access your encrypted data even after you disconnect from the Internet
Thats why wireless networking hardware will soon be built into future netbooks and notebooks to prevent removal
Thats why nobody is even covering these problems in the press but instead are removing my posts from over 50% of other sites on the Internet
If they doubt me, they should at least investigate these problems, don't you think?
I just stick to what I can prove!
Just try the examples I've described and see for yourself
I just stick to what I can prove!
Try the examples I've described with AVG and drivecrypt and see what I mean
Then you too will have evidence, not just conspiracy theory
http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/5/5263/1.html
The first discovery of the new NSA access system was made two years ago by British researcher Dr Nicko van Someren. But it was only a few weeks ago when a second researcher rediscovered the access system. With it, he found the evidence linking it to NSA.
Computer security specialists have been aware for two years that unusual features are contained inside a standard Windows software "driver" used for security and encryption functions. The driver, called ADVAPI.DLL, enables and controls a range of security functions. If you use Windows, you will find it in the C:\Windows\system directory of your computer.
ADVAPI.DLL works closely with Microsoft Internet Explorer, but will only run cryptographic functions that the US governments allows Microsoft to export. That information is bad enough news, from a European point of view. Now, it turns out that ADVAPI will run special programmes inserted and controlled by NSA. As yet, no-one knows what these programmes are, or what they do.
Dr Nicko van Someren reported at last year's Crypto 98 conference that he had disassembled the ADVADPI driver. He found it contained two different keys. One was used by Microsoft to control the cryptographic functions enabled in Windows, in compliance with US export regulations. But the reason for building in a second key, or who owned it, remained a mystery.
A second key
Two weeks ago, a US security company came up with conclusive evidence that the second key belongs to NSA. Like Dr van Someren, Andrew Fernandez, chief scientist with Cryptonym of Morrisville, North Carolina, had been probing the presence and significance of the two keys. Then he checked the latest Service Pack release for Windows NT4, [extern] Service Pack 5. He found that Microsoft's developers had failed to remove or "strip" the debugging symbols used to test this software before they released it. Inside the code were the labels for the two keys. One was called "KEY". The other was called "NSAKEY".
Fernandes reported his re-discovery of the two CAPI keys, and their secret meaning, to "Advances in Cryptology, Crypto'99" conference held in Santa Barbara. According to those present at the conference, Windows developers attending the conference did not deny that the "NSA" key was built into their software. But they refused to talk about what the key did, or why it had been put there without users' knowledge.
A third key?!
But according to two witnesses attending the conference, even Microsoft's top crypto programmers were astonished to learn that the version of ADVAPI.DLL shipping with Windows 2000 contains not two, but three keys. Brian LaMachia, head of CAPI development at Microsoft was "stunned" to learn of these discoveries, by outsiders. The latest discovery by Dr van Someren is based on advanced search methods which test and report on the "entropy" of programming code.
Within the Microsoft organisation, access to Windows source code is said to be highly compartmentalized, making it easy for modifications to be inserted without the knowledge of even the respective product managers.
Researchers are divided about whether the NSA key could be intended to let US government users of Windows run classified cryptosystems on their machines or whether it is intended to open up anyone's and everyone's Windows computer to intelligence gathering techniques deployed by NSA's burgeoning corps of "information warriors".
According to Fernandez of Cryptonym, the result of having the secret key inside your Windows operating system "is that it is tremendously easier for the NSA to load unauthorized security services on all copies of Microsoft Windows, and once these security services are loaded, they can effectively compromise your entire operating system". The NSA key is contained inside all versions of Windows from Windows 95 OSR2 onwards.
"For non-American IT managers relying on Windows NT to operate highly secure data centres, this find is worrying", he added. "The US government is currently making it as difficult as possible for "strong" crypto to be used outside of the US. That they have also installed a cryptographic back-door in the world's most abundant operating system should send a strong message to foreign IT managers".
"How is an IT manager to feel when they learn that in every copy of Windows sold, Microsoft has a 'back door' for NSA - making it orders of magnitude easier for the US government to access your computer?" he asked.
Is that what they're expecting? Has the PC come down to this? Sending photos to yourself!? What are they thinking? The problem is an OS isn't particularly exciting, applications are exciting, but the OS... well not really. I think the biggest problem here is Windows 7 doesn't do very much that Vista didn't, no applications need Windows 7 today (or probably tomorrow either) so what's the big deal? I mean for a GUI based OS you spend very little time in the OS itself - you might copy/move/delete a file or two, and launch an application - but really that's about it. So a new OS, it's all: meh.
If Microsoft had really thought about this, they'd have a nice new version of Office ready to go - with features that dovetail into Windows 7 (which probably means multitouch) and some games that were similarly suited to Windows 7 (again, probably multitouch). Sure this would have suggested you need a new PC, but honestly that's probably the best way to get a new version of Windows (nice new speedy PC, new OS and some swanky new applications to run on it - sounds good doesn't it?)
Instead we get this mind-rot. What is wrong with these people? How can they get marketing the Xbox360 so right, and Windows SO VERY WRONG???
And is it just me, or are the people in these things really creepy?
I agree that it would make sense to have some other apps or something that make W7 more compelling, don't know why they didn't take that approach.
Xbox? Geared for the cool tech folks again, like us. Why is the Wii so successful compared to the Xbox? Marketability. The very reason why Microsoft did these commercials - inclusion.
This one sort of sticks out for me too. I mean, the xbox game commercials are slick as all get-out, made for the demographic, and... you know? That's probably where they can get a handle on it.
The xbox has specific demographics and goals. It's easier to market something if you know a bit about who you're marketing it to. If you're marketing to everyone, then you have to pick aspects of your product which appeals to everyone. Bing, which does have fairly decent commercials (even if they do get old), manages to do this.
It's going to be a hell of a lot harder for Windows, because it really has only three selling points that Everyman can understand:
* "Our new product doesn't suck as bad as our old products do"
* "We got eye candy!"
* "We're cheaper!"
The first one is going to be impossible to market without degrading your brand, and the second? Would've been very workable in 1996, but not in a world where most folks are at least somewhat computer literate, and can point to a competitor who has far more of that aspect. The third one would get shot down rather quickly by the competition (and one of Apple's recent commercials does just that).
But I think most users run a couple of applications, really do they care much about the OS? That's why so few have shifted from XP: "XP launches my stuff, what advantage would I get having it launch from something else?"
Now the answer is probably security. But an lot of users (clients I deal with anyway) have either experienced "Vista fails to launch my stuff!!!" or have heard that from someone else. So it stops being where's the advantage to why take the risk?
Microsoft, need to show compelling applications running on Windows 7, exciting stuff, useful stuff, and get the idea across that it's only Windows 7 (& probably to a lesser extent Vista) that can enable the exciting future they're showing. Uploading Photos is hardly going to cut it. What they need is a "killer app" (an application so good you'll buy the box to run it) for a few market segments. That is, some business applications, and some games that need features not found in XP.
But at the moment Windows 7 is only going to be interesting to M$ fanboys, and maybe a few people who are wanting better security while staying with Windows. The great unwashed won't care.
Apple isn't marketing features or software. Lately they've just been marketing FUD for Windows. As funny as the commercials are, they have many holes in their assertions. So while the statements Apple makes about PC's are accurate in a general sense, they fail to present the exceptions to those statements.
When Apple ripped off Gary Lewis and The Playboys for the music to their new commercial, I think the emerging crack in their brand became obvious. Cultural archaeology is one way to get ideas but at least rouge the corpse.
Ever seen the caveman ads, or the ones with the talking tree limb or pothole? Many of them were halfway fun to watch in spite of selling, err, car insurance. Last I checked, car insurance isn't exactly fun or exciting.
I've done well over 1000 installs in the last year for Win7 at trade shows, client sites, and more and can say that the upgrade option shouldn't cause any real trouble. A clean install is best overall since you likely have a lot of apps that you installed once and forgot about or no longer need. For simply cleaning up your system, a clean install is the best way for any OS.
1) Windows 7 is SLOWER that XP,
2) Windows 7 will take up two to three times the disk space of XP, and
3) you will have to do a "clean install" when upgrading from XP to 7 (remove all your data, files, applications, erase your HD, and then reinstall all you apps plus any updates you made to those apps, correct drivers, etc. after you have installed 7 on your computer).
What a fun party that would be and would probably break up at 2 or 3 in the morning!
As for HDD space, in an era where 500GB HDD are regularly sold on $400 desktops I don't think the think more HDD space is a real issue. A lot of people can't fill half of a 500GB HDD so why would Windows 7 taking an extra 7-10GB be a big issue?
As for upgrades I have to give a reality check... most people stopped upgrading Windows years ago. They simply buy new machines where the OS is preinstalled. There are a lot of people I know that have never installed Windows for any reason nor do they ever plan on doing so unless it becomes so badly corrupted that that is the easiest way to get it back running again.
Furthermore, you are incorrect in saying that one must erase your HD to upgrade to Windows 7. You are right in that one would have to reinstall your apps, but beyond that you are being incredibly inaccurate. Furthermore, unlike XP, Windows 7 in most cases will already have the "correct" drivers out of the box because there is a larger driver database.
Good job though of spreading inaccurate info!
Put XP on these new systems that are sweating while running Vista or 7. You will see how bloated they are.
Interestingly, I just install Linux(open suse 11.1) on 24 machine that are about 5 years old. It screams and has all the bells an whistles as Vista or 7. With all the graphical crap turned on + the still a little bloated KDE 4, it uses ~350 MB right after it boots up. That means that if all you do is check email and do a little surfing, you can get buy with no real performance hit on 512 MB RAM. Let's see Vista or 7 do that. Linux does what an OS should do, runs in the background, stays out of your way and doesn't take up a significant chunk of system resources. Those 24 machines have 4 GB RAM, if VIsta or 7 was on it, nearly half if not a little more would be dedicated to the OS, instead of going where it should: applications.
yes it takes up to 3 times the disk space, but not for trash, it deserves every extra bit.
reinstalling your apps updated shoot take 2 hours, and that only for once. your reasoning means that we should stick with only windows xp and no other os (7, ubuntu, mac...)
On the other hand, Windows 7 and even Vista will run just fine with a dual-core processor and 2 GB of RAM, which is pretty much the LEAST you'll find on a new PC or laptop these days. And if that weren't enough, you can get a laptop with these specs for less than you would have paid for a P4 with 256 (or even 128) in 2002. How 'bout that? In spite of inflation, computers keep getting cheaper. The average user these days would be content with the power of a $480 laptop. And for those who need more speed, you can get a Studio XPS with better graphics than a $2,500 MacBook Pro (the MBP will have a faster processor speed, but the RAM and bus speeds are the same) for only $1,099. So what's the problem?
You know Win 3.11 will blow away XP on the same hardware, as will 95 and 98se, and as well as 2000 professional.
On LInux all the bells and whistles.. open Suse 11? with KDE bloat junk? Listen Linux is still just trying to imitate what works, and they do a 1/2 arse job at it KDE4.0 is a crashing peace of crap, that takes the performace you see out of the real product cut's it down by 3/4's and if you slay a chicken over you monitor may actually keep running long enough for you to post a message on CNET. Its not hat linux is is bad, its just not in the same league its has a different market focus where its strengths shine. When it trys to imitate others then it fails and falls flat.
There is a reason that it has not broken the .9 barrier in 20 years of trying despite being free.
http://www.betanews.com/article/Windows-XP-SP3-runs-browsers-13-faster-than-Windows-7-RTM/1249687071
And again, a LOT of PC users did NOT upgrade from XP to VISTA, in fact some downgraded BACK to XP from VISTA. Those still using XP will have to do a "clean install" to upgrade from XP to 7 ((remove all your data, files, applications, erase your HD, and then reinstall all you apps plus any updates you made to those apps, correct drivers, etc. after you have installed 7 on your computer). Do you think a lot of IT departments are going to want to jump on that one? If they do, I think the IT departments are the ones that will be working a lot of OVERTIME. Indubitably, right?
This is based on M$'s own upgrade chart.
Ref: http://mossblog.allthingsd.com/20090804/deciphering-windows-7-upgrades-the-official-chart/
It sure is a good thing you don't run a computer business selling computers or servicing them because if you gave customers the advice you just posted, you'd be sued out of business. :)
Wow.... your comments are so completely inaccurate and wildly out there that it's hard to know where to start.
If you read the article you are linking to, you'd even see that the author commented that it made sense that Google and Safari would be coded to run faster on the older *released* versions of Windows than on the newer *unreleased* versions as there were more installed instances of XP out there than of Win 7. Can we say DUH about that? Sheesh. Get your head out of your bum and just *read* the article you link to. You embarassed yourself big time on that one.
Okay, let's go for your FUD>
Clean installs. You say that people who want to install Win 7 have to do a clean install. Well, that is only true if the person chooses to do so. There is nothing requiring them to do so. What you are saying is an absolute and complete mistruth. I won't say 'lie' because it's clear you have never actually used the product before and therefore are only going with what others have told you. I'll help you out with that right here. I've done more than a thousand installations of this OS at trade shows, public events, off site meetings, etc. Clean installs are preferred, but not required.
Also, IT departments, of which I am part of one managing more than 35,000 (yes, that's thirty five THOUSAND) systems, also know that clean installs are the preferred method only because it's far faster to reimage a system with an imaging utility to bring it back into comlpliance than it is to mess around with it to see what the end user has done to mess it up. This applies to any OS, Windows, Mac, or Linux.
Overtime? No need for it unless you have incompetents who are gullible enough to believe your FUD. And if they do that, they won't be working for me long.
As for the chart you are referring to in a BLOG (not a real news source, mind you), you do have a good point. You can't go from 64 bit to 32 bit without having to do a clean install. But you know what, that's the way it has always been for *EVERY OS ON THE PLANET*.
Yep, FUD, pure and simple. Don't quit your day job, kid.
Microsoft itself says that you have to do a clean install if you're upgrading from XP: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd772579%28WS.10%29.aspx (only Vista SP1 -> 7 is supported).
...you were saying?
MS shills always have one thing in common: technical ignorance.
(I translated it from German, I'm a bit rusty so, be warned)
Von Gubar, Windows 7 is coming! But, is it worth the cost?
The benchmarks are in!! and XP over all is faster then Windows 7!
Windows 7 and Windows Visa tied in most categories but Windows 7 did manager to pull in a slight win over Windows Vista. Windows 7 does on average require more hard drive space then Windows Vista by a few Gigabytes and it just smacks XP on hard drive usage requiring double to triple the drive space on average.
(Over the next 6 pages he talks in depth about each test and the results and the comparisons with nice colorful graphs and charts which is all a bit pointless here really, so here is the meat)
The recommendations are: If you're using XP and everything is working for you, there is no reason to upgrade to Windows 7. If you deployed Vista and did not role back to XP now is your chance (XP is smaller, faster and requires no enduser training). If you've deployed Vista to your enterprise already and do not want to roll back to XP there still is no compelling reason to upgrade to Windows 7 from Windows Vista. It's going to require another round of enduser training, the slight speed increase is minimal over Windows Vista, there are no new compelling features that justify the IT cost or it's effort.
In short the recommendations are if you're running XP don't upgrade to Windows 7, if you're running Windows Vista role back to XP or keep Windows Vista as Windows 7 as nothing to justify the cost or effort of upgrading.
by: Von Gubar Janokowski - IT Director Ziviil
All it takes to comfortably run Windows 7 or even Vista is a dual-core processor and 2 GB of RAM. And you can get that on a $480 laptop. Back in 2002, you would pay more than that for a desktop unit with a Pentium 4 and 256 MB of RAM, not to mention an exponentially smaller hard drive. What's the problem?
P.S.: I'm about to use the $1,000 BestBuy gift card I won from MyCokeRewards (plus $200 cash, to cover difference and tax) to get myself a Studio XPS with a 2.4 GHz C2D, 1066 MHz FSB, 4 GB DDR3 1066, 500 GB SATA, and Radeon M86XT graphics. I can spare 20 GB of space. ;)
you can partition your drive in 2 and install 7 than move files and delete the xp partition and extend the 7 partition,there are many options...
Are you serious with that comment? Mac OS X Snow Leopard cut off ALL Power PC Users, so is that another 1200-1800 bucks I gotta shell up to continue running an OS? Yeah try again.
...which means your computer has to be nearly 5 years old before you'd have to worry about that.
I dont know what headaches you're talking about. i have been running sl for some time and have never encountered one hitch.
Most vista users couldn't even tell you what OS they are running, much less know there is a slightly less bloated service pack for sale.
Apple can exploit Justin Long and John Hodgeman till they turn red in the face and Richard Stallman can curse out proprietary till he goes insane (which I think already is). The majority Consumers and businesses will always choose Windows.
Microsoft can market all they want. I have no intention of installing Win 7 until a year after it hits retail. I figure then I will have a wealth of tweaks available and at least 1 service pack to install to make it run the way it should of run out of the box. Besides prices will have dropped in year.
However Microsoft's weakness and poor historical track record on OS releases/upgrades is not enough to push me into the Mac cult of over priced hardware.
I think you hit the nail right on the head. I have an aunt who works at Chase, and takes phone calls all the time from customers who are absolutely fuming because Chase's Web site won't work properly in Safari. Don't try telling them to install Firefox, it'll just make them more angry. To them, the OS is second only to Jesus Himself; Apple's software is absolutely pristine! Too bad it can't go to sleep with a browser open, LOL.
I too have XP setup just the way I like it. But most of the programs I use will work on 7 as well, and there are alternatives for those that don't. What I like about Windows 7 is that it's not only just as stable as XP out of the box, but it's less delicate than XP as well. I don't have to use Acronis as often when testing new programs; they don't usually cripple the OS. Definitely a plus!
@sythara:
How do you like XP x64?
Microsoft can market all they want. I have no intention of installing Win 7 until a year after it hits retail. I figure then I will have a wealth of tweaks available and at least 1 service pack to install to make it run the way it should of run out of the box. Besides prices will have dropped in year.
However Microsoft's weakness and poor historical track record on OS releases/upgrades is not enough to push me into the Mac cult of over priced hardware.
CompUSA went out of business due to Windows Vista not being able to sell well. They invested a lot of time and money in Windows Vista upgrades and bought a lot of Vista upgrade CDs. Turns out Vista runs best on systems it is preinstalled on, and even on systems it is upgraded on doesn't have full AERO effects and things are turned off because the hardware won't support them. Plus Vista needed twice the RAM and three times the hard drive space as XP. So CompUSA ate the costs, and then also made mistakes in not stocking enough LCD monitors and got stuck with unsellable CRT monitors and other things. I heard almost the same thing happened to Circuit City, but because Best Buy didn't care about getting ready for Vista upgrades it only sold the computers with Vista on them and Geek Squad did the upgrades or rather downgrades back to Windows XP.
Soon we will have a reason to go to Windows 7, when Windows XP support ends and Microsoft stops making security updates for it like it did Windows 2000 and under. Then software applications and games will only be made for Windows Vista and up, shutting out XP. Then we'll be forced to use Vista or 7 and ditch XP. Microsoft did the same thing for Visual BASIC 6.0 when it went to Visual BASIC.Net.
Legacy software is important and it isn't going to be ported to Vista or 7 any time soon, which is why 7 Pro and up has that XP virtual machine download to run legacy software in a virtual machine. That is the only feature that will sell to most businesses who avoided Vista and stuck with XP.
Honestly, I don't think Windows 7 is as hard of a sale as you think. Now that Microsoft has stopping doing non-critical updates for XP I think that any serious IT department will have to admit that no matter how much they would prefer to stay forever put that they will need to move on eventually. Given the choice between Vista or 7, based upon my own use of 7 and that of numerous others I would be surprised if many businesses would pick Vista or Windows 7. Not only will 7 be supported by MS for a longer period of time, but it tends to have better performance than Vista.
Honestly, legacy applications have been an issue long before Vista. XP broke a lot of Windows 9x apps to say nothing of DOS based apps. Despite all the current love that XP receives in its' early years plenty of people rebelled against it for breaking applications. At some point one either has to either move towards new software or virtualization.
I must admit, I had never heard that theroy before. It's right up there with Elvis, Bigfoot, and aliens.
Of course, he was given talking points to trash Vista so they can push 7, just like they did with XP, which is still MS's most widely used OS.
everybody knows that you get a free win 7 ultimate for hosting the party right?
its a good idea,if you dont see it that is your problem.
I deleted that email...
-Luis
As for bench marks of XP vs Win7. Humm, lets test a BETA product against a full version that has been out for years and see what works better.
As for Linux size vs Win7. Humm, lets take the OS, and only put the OS on it. NOTHING extra, like a media player, photo software, etc. Then compare sizes. Oh, that is fair. Yes.
By no means is Windows 7 going to kill Linux or Mac OS X house cat, or whatever they are calling it. Most people who use either one of those, just don't like Microsoft because they were told not to. Not because they have any real reason to. They won't likely go back to Microsoft for that very reason.
I used to use AMD processors only. Price vs Performance, they kicked Intel butt. You could get the same performance from AMD for less then what Intel charged. I stuck with AMD for years because of this. But now, I am back with Intel. Why? Intel now has the advantage of price vs performance.
If Apple ever stopped trying to be the cool one and charge way too much for THE SAME hardware (sometimes called the Apple Tax), I would go back to Apple. But when a Mac cost 40-50% more for the same hardware, I would rather stay uncool and be a PC.
I'm using both Windows 7 and Ubuntu/Debian variants. Ubuntu uses less RAM at idle, has a smaller footprint, and is generally a bit quicker in its actions. Windows 7 is (arguably) a more polished interface and in my opinion a step up from Vista. I even generally prefer the Windows 7 interface over XP. Windows 7, on my machine, is the fastest OS I've seen for boot, shutdown, hibernate, and return from hibernate, topping XP and even initial installations of Linux with a GUI.
Good and bad for each, and it's all in what you want.
You have to laugh when you see the cover of Norton products. Some guy holding a laptop to his chest and looks like Tiger Woods. 20% white, 30%black 20%asian 30%kurdish
Nevertheless I don't expect that Microsoft will entirely buck the sagging economy. A lot of businesses are still looking to stretch their budgets and won't replace computers unless they are starting to show serious physical issues(ie. failing hardware). While anecdotally I have known a couple of people in the last year that replaced a computer as opposed to even trying to fix their old computer I have a feeling that a lot of home users are going to try to drag out replacing their computers as long as possible. Windows 7 may be a better OS relative to Vista, but joe sixpack generally doesn't get very excited about a new OS unless it allows them to run a piece of software that they couldn't before.
That's about it.
Nevertheless, there are a fair number of people who shunned Vista by delaying their purchase who will find that Windows 7 resolves enough of their criticisms of Vista to placate them.
Either way, I'm sure that Win7 will do just fine. I've had the certification courses on it already as part of my OJT and I think it'll do just fine. If anything, I'd like to see MS change Office for the better. Firstly, stop putting us over the barrel for the flip'n cost already. Secondly, how about Office standard coming with OUTLOOK please?! And what the heck is up with all the silly versions....home office and student, standard, premium, home office with biz manager, corporate, etc etc....how about you just sell a unified package and call it....dunno....OFFICE....it'd make it a WHOLE LOT easier for me to sell at my job. Instead, people buy a new laptop or desktop, I suggest Office.....they go to look at it and take one look at the cost and run from the hills screaming.
As for Apple....they lost the arms race....they're not even on my radar. If I want an IBM powered machine running Linux...oh sorry...UNIX....I'll go download the OS and install it on my current system and save all the snooty attitude for someone else. No.....it's really not that good boys, good yes, but not all that and a bag of chips :) You guys lost everything that made Apple unique and desireable....RISC processors, custom/in-house OS, etc.....at least you got rid of that silly one button mouse! *claps*
In the end, while I'm by no means a MS fanboy (if popular titles came out ported in Linux as well, I'd be using just that), I really DO have to hand it to Microsoft here. Their last three versions of Windows have been very solid. Vista and now I think 7 are what I think the OS should have been since the '90's however....so it may be a day late and buck short.....but it's VERY solid either way IMO.
Vista is not the first OS it has produced to flop, however it is the more recent and brutal as its load on computers lead many in the computer industry to ship computers with Vista's minimum requirements being said computer's maximum ability. Case in point, my new laptop required an upgrade to handle the OS that came with it... rather than do that, I spent the same cost it would have taken me and went for the more streamlined OS (WinXP).
Windows 7 is designed to look pretty and function like any number of the applications you could have bought to do the same thing (if you wanted such functions). There is no need for it to be nearly as resource heavy, nor is there a need for it to produce anything so gadget happy except for the masses who do not know much about computers.
Unless Microsoft has a paradigm shift and makes an OS that is compact, stable, and allows the consumer to upgrade compatibility without sacrificing their computer... I will have no further interest in purchasing or supporting Windows products. I understand it is a company and needs to provide an improved product in order to produce profit.... but it could do the same thing with a basic GUI on par with earlier versions of Windows and have a section on the MS site to purchase sections of upgrades you wish and/or support options.
So to anyone looking to get Win7 regardless, or have no other option... wait until service pack 2 or get a system larger than your needs require.
I remember when 2000 came out, and everyone was up in arms that the *Bloated OS* min requirements of 32 MB, 64 recommended and 128mb was what you really wanted. People screamed about 128mb OMG its going to cost me $400 for the $128mb dimm (now available for $15)
I'm not sure how much your memory for your laptop costs but we paid around $80 for our laptop memory upgrade to 4gb.
Now as far as compact stable.. Most OS's as they take on more and more of what consumers demand, the OS gets larger. Linux itself is feeling the squeeze as its requirements continue to escalate. OS/X is no different. It appears that all OS's need more as time goes on as we expect and demand more.
Now why wait on Win7 SP2? The vast Majority of the people who have run the RC have had little to no issues.... So why spin FUD?
When XP came out people said it was the worst OS MS every created.
Vista's issues with drivers had little to do with issues writing the drivers vs corporate greed. Many peripheral manufacturers mad really good product. So good that it just worked and lasted for ever, and that was not good for the bottom line.
So they jumped on the Vista bandwagon to not provide drivers for the new model, to try and get new cash flow by forcing people to replace perfectly good peripherals with new ones. Where in many cases the guts where the same just a new label and new driver.
So in many ways I do not see that as an MS issue, but as an HP and other corp greed companies who really tried to extort from the end user.
- by willengage September 27, 2009 1:33 AM PDT
- The problem with these parties is that people cannot relate to them. People do not set around a laptop in this way... ever.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by BigGuns149 September 27, 2009 3:56 PM PDT
- Honestly, for joe sixpack an OS is simply something that they run their programs on top of. While you or I may be interesting in the more technical details a lot of average people have basic needs.
- Like this
-
- by McPlot September 28, 2009 3:48 AM PDT
- I am having my Windows 7 party using my full tower PC and a 61" 1080p HDTV, cause you are right, people don't gather around a laptop like that.
- Like this
-
- by wolivere September 29, 2009 7:49 AM PDT
- Maybe you don't but can you speak for everyone? Obviously there are a lot of people who signed up.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 4 pages (136 Comments)Microsoft marketing efforts of late have been horrible. Take for example their new slogan: "Life without walls." Can anyone tell me what this means? Seriously! How does this relate to PC usage? What's worse is that it begs the question: "If I don't have walls, why do I need Windows?"
Microsoft is just trying to show people that PC's are not like the Apple ads claim they are. In some ways it works. In others it is confusing.
And think about the Apple ads. If Mac OSX was so good, whey do they not show OSX actually doing something, instead of saying "For no other reason then we say windows sucks, buy a mac!"