Dell says Windows 7 price is possible barrier
Windows 7 pricing is potentially an obstacle to Windows 7 adoption for some users, though in just about every other aspect the operating system is beating Vista, according to a Dell marketing executive.
"If there's one thing that may influence adoption, make things slower or cause customers to pause, it's that generally the ASPs (average selling price) of the operating systems are higher than they were for Vista and XP," Darrel Ward, director of product management for Dell's business client product group, said in a phone interview, referring to the various versions of the Windows 7 operating system that are expected to appear.
Ward continued. "In tough economic times, I think it's naive to believe that you can increase your prices on average and then still see a stronger swell than if you held prices flat or even lowered them. I can tell you that the licensing tiers at retail are more expensive than they were for Vista."
In the business market, Windows 7 Professional is expected to be more expensive than Windows Vista Business, the version that Professional is replacing, he said.
Some schools and smaller businesses may not be early adopters due to price. "Schools and government agencies may not be able to afford (the additional cost). Some of the smaller businesses may not be able to enjoy the software as soon as they'd like," Ward said.
Pricing aside, Ward said momentum behind Windows 7 is big compared with Vista. "When Vista came out we didn't have the motivation to do the types of services that we're doing now. We didn't have the clear customer demand for such services," he said. "We do have a visible number of customers, large and small, who are actually waiting for Windows 7 and who have already put plans in place to target the transition to Windows 7, they're asking Dell for help. That demand and this opportunity is stronger than it has been in the past," Ward said.
And Dell is already getting its service organization in gear for Windows 7. "Our professional service organization is beginning to structure service offerings specifically designed to help customers migrate their images, their applications, and their management infrastructure, security capabilities and so forth."
More than half of Dell's business customers are still using Windows XP and these customers will eventually have to upgrade, according to Ward. "XP cannot live forever," he said.
To help users migrate from XP to Windows 7, Dell supports the upcoming operating system's XP mode. "It's one of the things that Microsoft is doing that we think is helpful. Putting an instance of XP virtual machine in the higher end SKUs (models). This is another alternative for compatibility. We'll fully support that in our product and consulting services." he said.
Driver readiness is good, with some exceptions. "Driver readiness--it looks pretty healthy compared to the past. (There are) some things that haven't been worked out. The WHQL (Windows Hardware Quality Lab) drivers for AMT VPRO is a little behind," he said, referring to Intel's Active Management Technology, which allows remote access to PCs for security, maintenance, and management.
Generally, however, Windows 7 is much further along than Vista was at this stage, he said. "But if you look at the ecosystem enabling for Windows 7, it is much further along that it was at the same time for Vista," he said.
Brooke Crothers has served as an editor at large at CNET News, an editor at Dow Jones' Asian Wall Street Journal Weekly, and a senior editor at InfoWorld. His CNET blog covers chip technology and computer systems, and how they define the computing experience. He also contributes to The New York Times' Bits and Technology sections. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. Follow Brooke on Twitter @mbrookec. 
Send in the Mac clowns..."
The Windows clowns are already here I see.
After all that is the only platform that matters and all you need is a browser.
The OS is becoming irrelevant by the day.
After all that is the only platform that matters and all you need is a browser."
And a connection, which may not be there when you need it.
Windows 7 Crap Starter's Edition - $9.99
Windows 7 Crappier Edition - $14.99
Windows 7 Crappiest Edition - $19.99
Windows Vista Ultimate Crap Edition owners should get Windows 7 Crappiest Edition for free
Could you be any less useful with your comments? [CNET editors' note: Personal attack deleted.]
I've been warning people that Windows 7 is nothing but Vista SP3. Microsoft is just
screwing consumers...
You wouldn't would you?
Apple zombies are not known for having any sense whatsoever.
slickuser @ :"The pricing I posted is the reasonable price
for Windoze"
That's rich coming from an idiot that keeps paying a fortune for the overpriced, unerpowered crap from Apple, that can't run even one tenth the applications that a Windows PC can run.
Apple moron: "Hey look at me. i look cute because I paid a fortune for an idiotoc logo"
a fool and his money are soon parted.
I hope you stop the personal attacks on Windows 7. That's what Apple fanboys do these days out of frustration that Microsoft is putting out an excellent OS. An OS they find difficult to bash and convert users from because of all the positive press relagating them to nothing but mindless dribble.
In a virtual world where others control your data this is a great model. Put it all on the net and trust in others.
You can do that just as you point out. Some don't mind doing that wiht their data. Others worked too hard and for too long to evre give anyone that much control.
Businesses didn't want Vista becaue it breaks many of their applications, so provide downgrade rights to XP, but only for a more expensive version of Vista (Vista Business), which many laptops don't ship with, unless its a made for buisness model.
Home Users and Consumers can get stuck with Vista Home Basic, or they can buy XP at full retail price. But wait, they didn't exactly fall for that, they went for netBooks with XP.
Well, if that's what customers want, let's give them cheap XP, but let's tell the OEMs that they can't ship with more than 1GB of RAM (even if the computer can handle up to the 3GB limit of XP), or have a processor faster than 1.66Ghz, or have more than one Core.
Let's say at current prices adoption is at 30% in the long run (a VERY conservative estimate), with the rest divided between people that stay at XP, pirates and people using other platforms.
Now, drop the price in half. You might see an increased adoption by those three groups, let's say the price drop is so succesful that half the people in those groups buys 7 (which is extremely ambitious considering the many reasons why someone might not upgrade, of which price is only one).
In that scenario, Microsoft would still be making less money (considering cost of goods, distribution, support and retailer margins) than if they maintained current price. So even under the most optimistic scenarios, a price drop is unlikely to make commercial sense.
Now, if adoption was really, really low (even lower than with Vista) it might make sense to lower the price. But with an even moderate success, it is really unlikely.
Never pay retail on ANYTHING. SMART consumers shop around and never pay full MSRP.
That happens sometimes. I just graduated from the University of Miami and I used to work in their Tech Product Center. We had download links for the .iso files of Vista Ultimate, XP Professional, and Office 2003 and 2007 all available for free download. Unfortunately many of the students didn't know about this and so didn't take advantage of it.
Well heck they should obliterate Vista and call 7 SP3 and get that era over with.
Yeah, I got Xp, Vista, VS 2003 & 2008, Project, MSSQL Server and few more things for free through MSDNAA.
Too bad they are still overpriced.
Business users within reason CAN be convinced to spend more if they are convinced that a more expensive option is worth the expense. A lot of medium and large business customers ARE willing to spend more for a pricier business version to get Active Directory, Domain based networking, drive encryption, etc. Microsoft's success at getting enterprise customers to pay for it bears out the rationale of a business version in addition to the consumer version. If there was only one version Microsoft would either have to make the one version more expensive than the home version in order to make up for lost revenue from business customers(I'm sure all the cnet users who are overwhelmingly home users wouldn't like this) or they would lose money on business customers spending less, which isn't going to happen.
One doesn't need an MBA to realize that market differentiation makes sense for maximizing profits. Merely because one can go overboard with product differentiation (ie. Vista) doesn't mean that the general concept is bad.
One optimized for desktop
One optimized for laptops
One with very basic features
a) charge everyone the most expensive price, and lost a hughe chunk of sales, alienate users and disrupt the market.
b) charge everyone the least expensive price, and reduce their earnings in half (or more).
or
c) charge something in between, and lost some sales, lost some earnings and still don't have any upside other than some good PR?
What you say is nice, but not well thought of. Askign for a single Windows 7 is like asking Volkswagen to sell just one car. In a market that's price sensitive but that has widely varying buying power (from corporations able to pay a thousand per seat to students that can only afford to spend $30 on software) product segmentation is the only sensible strategy.
Maybe seven editions is too much, but two is too litle, and one is suicidal.
You need to have an entry level offering for those that need the security and adaptability of a new OS. You need a high end product to be able to squeeze a few extra dollars for those that can pay a lot (such as those paying $2000 for a new high end machine, where the cost of the OS wouldn't make a difference). You need a mid range product for the majority. And you might even need a separate OS for corporations that can pay a lot more, and that need special enterprise related features.
Do any less than that and you are missing sales or losing money.
Good point. Point to Mac. Vista Ultimate has a leg up on OS X but OS X covers all the bases save one that Ultimate does (Bitlocker). I'm sure Snow Leapard will have that gap fixed.
Concerning market differentiation; the Undercover Economist would suggest that Microsoft isn't looking for clientele that is willing to pay more; but rather; clientele that doesn?t care. Bargaining power comes through scarcity. Check out the menu/prices at your favorite coffee shop, or product selection at the local grocery store. Ask yourself, ?do I feel more special because I have a different colored powder in my white mocha vs café mocha??; or more importantly, ?do I really care about the $0.20 price difference??
MS idiocy in action.
It's an awful shame that Windows is going to charge more for replacing an OS (Vista) that should have never been released in the first place.
If you are buying retail, that's another history, but you don't buy a retail version of Windows to put on a newly acquired netbook.
Bite the bullet - Windows 7 is going to be everywhere so you might as well get on with it.
Average consumer walks into a store and says 'I want to try out this Windows 7'
Looks at reatail box on shelf and sees the price.
Looks at computer next to box and say 'How can they charge more for this than a new machine costs'
You would have to say they would have a point. If the selling point is it's cheap if you bend the rules then it's not cheap.
I think MIcrosoft wants to go out with a bang. A bang that not many people will hear. If they want to keep their Vista users (I am not talking about the average consumer who deals with the GUI) happy and give everyone another chance at it, they should perhaps bring down the upgrade price. I don't think anyone wants to pay over 200 dollars for an upgrade especially at an OEM like Dell and let alone retail pricing. Its like a terrbile bite in the @ss as they take your money away.
I would say a family pack such as the OSx family pack would make sense. THey had separate licenses for a limited time but they discontinued it.
Price should be related to value. And it is clear that Windows 7 will be worth much more to customers than Vista was.
I don't know if raising the price is a good move or not for them, but if the product is worth it, people will buy it.
Price should be related to value. And it is clear that Windows 7 will be worth much more to customers than Vista was.
------------------------
Mac user here (not interested in Mac vs Windows pissing contest)
If Apple started offering multi-tiered, variably priced versions of OS X that were confusing as to what exactly you get for your money to boot, they would really damage their brand horribly.
Many people use Vista and love it. Unfortunately, I know way too many Vista users with maddening experiences. MS almost comes out and says Vista was basically a Windows 7 beta. So you pay for Vista, use it with all it's short comings and frustrations (if that has been your experience, and it has been for many) while waiting with baited breath for 7. Then when 7 finally comes out, it's priced higher because it's so much 'better' than Vista. Well, if Vista has been the bane of your life for a while, having to pay a higher price for 7, which is what Vista in many ways should have been in the first place with regard to stability, you may feel you're paying a higher price for a 'fixed' version (7) of a 'broken' product (Vista) you had to pay for as if it was new and improved to begin with, when really it was new and in-progress.
Given Windows commercials targeting Apple's prices, they run the risk of emphasizing that the most unreasonably priced element of owning a PC, is not the PC, it's the MS part of the package. This is more mud in your eye given the recession. I just don't get MS's reasoning. It's like they're dead set on pissing off their customers instead of boosting their own image.
The best thing they could do is offer one fully featured product priced between the current high-end and the current low-end. First off?no confusion about which version to buy for your customers, or risking they end up feeling the victim of bait and switch if they find they need to upgrade later. People who would have bought the bottom end will have to pay a little more, but they'll feel like their getting something for nothing when they get all the features at the "middle" price. People at the middle will feel good about getting the top end for no extra charge. People who would have bought the high-end will jump quicker to get the new 'discounted price.'
I think the fear for MS is that it would cost volume on the low-end. I think it would increase sales in total. The middle and high end people will jump to 7 faster, and the low-end will feel like their flying in first-class at business class prices. The key being that 7 needs to be stable so everyone will feel good about the new version and the new single price.
Perceived value is not based on price alone. Paying more to get something your ultimately happy with is far better than paying less for something you regret buying at all, later. MS never seems to get this important point about how valuable the customer experience as the driving force behind what the customer is willingness to pay, and the case of MS, how fast they choose to adopt the new product. Even the most budget conscious consumer does not always think cheaper is better. Feeling like your "getting what you paid for" and what you got was good is always better for customer and seller alike.
Apple doesn't need to sell different versions cause its apple hardware running apple software. Its a simpler ecosystem of technology and users. I hate the pissing contests too cause as companies they really are not comparable. And where they ARE comparable they're just different styles of the same thing. And what kind of bigot goes around dogging on ppls style difference. (I'm a little guilty of adding my 2 cents to feature wars) regardless, Windows 7 will sell for expensive cause people will buy it, and no one will even notice in a few years. With the rate of inflation and the increasing cost of development and the economic loss on vista, its no big supprise, and if we want to continue having MS products then we've gotta buy um anyway. (and for others, don't bother saying "we don't want MS products", cause I DO want MS products and think they're fantastic. So shutup.)
no, if you want to justify anything, compare it to win2000
The hardware OEMs might be able to leverage some rate concessions by using some Linux version as a threat like they did with the notebooks. That is why Dell is price posturing now.
[CNET editor's note: Profane language deleted.]
Right off the bat, Windows 7 runs a heck of a lot more applications than any Linux does. Not to mention Win 7 will play most of the top games from the top games publishers, which Linux won't.
You have it the other way round, dude.
I can run a heck of a lot more apps on Win 7, and have more devices run run on Win 7, than any iteration of linux. Why the heck would I waste my time on Linux or the mac for that matter?
If old hardware is paid for, functions, and basically works - then why exactly should it be thrown out? Just cause it is old? I gather you are the market that MS is aiming for, a person willing to waste top dollar money just for something new & shiny. I get that you don't follow twburger's logic, but I fail to follow your logic...
I believe the comment you put down was talking about HARDWARE and drivers, NOT SOFTWARE and apps. I'm glad you are not wasting your time with Linux or Mac since I doubt you could understand either, you didn't even understand the comment you disagreed with.
Computers can do more, way more, than merely play fancy games. Glad you are a MS fan.
Huh?
A Win 7 PC is BOTH hardware and software. More than that, Win 7 runs faster, smoother and better on ANY hardware than Vista does.
Don't try and change the subject.
@ docster87: I'm glad you are not wasting your time with Linux or Mac since I doubt you could understand either,"
Is that why most computer uers on this planet have rejected Linux and the mac?
Most of the computer using population on this planet (over 90% as a matter of fact), are just too plain "dumb" to understand the "oh so sophisticated" Linux and apple macs, that is why (being smart) they save themselves a fortune and overwhelmingly buy Windows PC's, and leave the stupid 2.9% of computer buyers on the planet, to overpay for a logo, and kid themselves that they are somehow cute and "hip".
It's always a laugh to see those idiotic wannabe Apple poseurs around town, packing their overpeiced funny little toys. They look so darn silly.
As it turns out, a recent study found out that most apple user are in reality, neither cute nor hip.
@ docster87:" you didn't even understand the comment you disagreed with."
Oh yes I do.
You on the other hand, don't have a clue what you are talking about, or maybe you do and are deliberately changing the subject.
@ docster87:" Computers can do more, way more, than merely play fancy games."
Computers are multi-purpose devices. Playing great, AAA games is a very important reason why millions buy computers. To go pay twice as much for an apple mac, which can't even run most of the AAA games out there, is not only silly, it doesn't make much sense.
I don't need a system that can run millions of apps, I just need one that runs the few tasks I need. I'm so glad you need personal attacks and name calling to build an argument, I'll try my best to merely switch topics without degrading you or other MS users.
I use a Mac mainly for its ability to multimedia edit and create. In the decade before switching I wasted a ton of money trying to upgrade MS machines to do what I discovered my underpowered Mac could do right out of the box with the included software. Playing games is nice, but way down on my list of what I need my computer to do.
If you can't think of where Linux or OS X is better than XP/Vista 7, then you really can't speak to the subject. They both have advantages over 7, while 7 has a few advantages over Linux and OS X.
What "older hardware" is that?
I installed Win 7 on my 5 year old HP laptop, without any problems, and it's running better than Vista/XP ever did on that same laptop.
@ docster87 :"and right off the bat your comment jumps into how win7 runs a heck of a lot more applications than Linux"
Read up, pal.
The original post said : "However, it offers me nothing I can't get from XP or Linux."
To which I replied, "right off the bat, Win 7 runs a hack of a lot more applications than Linix or the Mac.
That is enough reason to use Win 7, instead of the mac or Linux for over 90% of consumers, who chose Windows over the mac or Linux so they can run applications they need to run. A computer is but a tool. You buy it to run applicatiions you want to run. you don't buy it to look "cool" or be 'with it".
Get it?
If you can't think of where Linux or OS X is better than XP/Vista 7, then you really can't speak to the subject."
Are you kidding me?
Lemme know when you get back from screwball land will you?
@ by Renegade Knight:" They both have advantages over 7, while 7 has a few advantages over Linux and OS X"
You got it the other way round. Win 7/XP/Vista have vast advantages over Linux/OS X(Win/7/Vista/XP run every application consumers need for starters, which is what buying a computer is all about for most consumers), while Linux/OS X has very very few advanges over Win 7/XP/Vista. That is why 90% of computer users on the planet have CHOSEN to buy windows PC's instead of OSX or Linux PC's.
Consuners have to work hard for their money, and they know best how to spend ther hard eraned money on computers, not some wild eyed open source fanatic or Apple rent boy.
There isn't much hardware Win 7 doesn't support a fact about Linux though is its a pain in the ass to get the hardware to work properly.
and "less than $50" is rediculous. and yes Win7 is something to write home about, its more than a "fixed" vista to me.
I can see gizmodo the msft hating tards are gonna take this story and explode with it.
That's too bad. I was sort of looking forward to something new that didn't suck from MS, but looks like I'll have to wait some more. Seems like some of these companies believe people are made of money. Perhaps the bankers and real estate people maybe, but not most of the rest of us.
"Rediculous" indeed. Just one little thing Mac's can do that MS hasn't figured out.
well I have iespell enabled but I really couldn't bother correcting anything as I was just trying to get my point out pretty fast.
I it really doesn't need to be system wide, just where it counts the most.
Windows 7 makes more efficient use of back-end hardware limitations, such as low RAM. If you're running a computer that was "barely sufficient" to run Vista, you're likely to see a substantial improvement in performance if you go to Windows 7. Especially those computers with the horrendous Intel video chipset where Vista Premium was effectively massaged to run with Aero, Windows 7 will likely run without a hitch and faster than you'd imagined.
If you have a computer that was high end to begin with, there's no clear reason to make the jump for the price they're going to ask. You will NOT see an appreciable difference in performance. I have a Gateway FX p7805u laptop, Centrino 2, 4GB RAM, nVidia 9800 GT video card, all the bells and whistles...and I find no real benefit to Windows 7 that would warrant its purchase at this time. About the only feature Windows 7 has that I want is the whole "library" concept, of organizing links to groupings of information wherever they might be - a catalog of sorts. I've wanted something like that since Windows 95. But I wouldn't pay the full price for a new OS just for that feature. If they offer an upgrade for less than $150 I'll consider it.
People have to think about this: IF your computer is so much crap that your Vista is barely running, rather than spend upwards of $400-$600 on a new OS, why not just invest that money in a decent PC? You can get a high end machine for $600 these days which comes with Vista, and you'll see the improved performance.
MS is trying to make up lost revenue from Visa sales by over charging for 7. MS has been buttering up the media and generating as much hype as they can for Vista v.2.0 and it's worked for them. Where they fail is not in simplifying the number of versions. There should only be one desktop version with everything bundled into it and create installation profiles for laptops, netbooks, media centers, and desktops.
MicroSoft sold a Broken Vista. Rather than Fix Vista they came out with 7 and then will charge everone for both the Vista that didn't quite do the job and again for 7.
I disagree with your assersion that Vista was broken, in fact I see very little difference between the Vista release and previous releases as far as its capability for the times. The biggest difference was a very successful (and liable) smear campaign (and issue with the constant changes pre-release so few drivers were ready), but win95 everyone complained about high system requirements and instability. Win98 I actually though was a pretty good release and was pretty much a fix for 95, but there were still a lot of complaints (completely unfounded as far as I could tell) Windows ME... come on, THAT was a joke, everyone I know just bought 2000 and there were MAJOR compatibility issues (most of my games would not run) Windows XP was a good release also, but for those that don't remember it was flagged as a resource hog. Just win2000 with a prettier UI. All kinds of things, and the features were ignored. In fact, by Vista standards XP WAS a resource hog when it was released. And per dollar for a machine that would decently run XP when it was released VS. a machine that would decently run Vista when it came out... a machine for XP cost a LOT more. Givin the time span between the XP and Vista release I was SUPPRISED at how little the run spec had increase.
I would prob still be running XP if Vista hadn't come on my laptop, or if I hadn't been givin two copies at microsoft confrences, but thats not cause I don't like it, but because I don't upgrade till I start seeing age in an OS, and really... XP is only barely starting to show its age, it was a dang good OS.
My company owns has an Enterprise agreement and we are on XP, 2003 server, Exchange 2003, MOM 2005, and we just removed SMS even though we could have went with SCCM. Often its the time and resources needed to migrate that stops everything. All of what I listed, works fine so the incentive to upgrade it all is not there currently as we always have plenty to do.
We will go to 7, probably around this time next year as XP is getting long in the tooth. However I will upgrade our AD domain to 2008 R2, before we do that. No since in having 7 on the desktop with out being able to use all of the new AD features that work with 2008 and 7.
As far as computers are concerned Microsoft is still primarily a software provider, not a hardware manufacturer. It's okay for Apple to just do a one-sized fits all since they make bank off of their hardware, not their software. It'd be like saying Apple should just make one Mac desktop and one Mac laptop.
Since MS doesn't get any computer hardware sells, they really need to provide multiple versions. That way they get the extra bonus money from those that need the absolute best while keeping the market that just can't afford more than a basic OS - and the more tiers the more customers and money MS can rake in.
Don't like it, but it does make sense to me now.
The code is already written. It's a sunk cost. They could charge the same price for 7 and sell 1 version and call it a day. Instead they spin it out as multiple versions set multiple prices and force a situation where all programmers have to program for the Lowest Common Denominator. 7 Basic when maybe they could have done a better job with tooks available in 7 Ultimate.
MicroSoft could have just charged more for the only 7 version over the teird 7 versions and made up the difference and not have a lot of customers buy the wrong one for the job.
What is really going on is that retail customers are paying for customer support from MS. OEM copies don't offer customer support (you must go through the box builder), corporate licensing means the IT department provides support.
What Dell is griping about is that their OEM license cost is going up compared to Vista. They could give a rat's butt about retail.
Less because W7 is expected to be good, and more because Vista was bad. I have Vista, and provided W7 actually works and is stable (a tall order for Micro$oft), I'll be switching simply for the purpose of dumping Vista.
Nevertheless, it's probably the last time I'll ever install Windows as my primary OS. I'll be running it virtualized out of the nice, stable Mac OS from now on. That way I can kill it whenever I see fit (probably often).
Right off the bat Win 7 wins..cause it can run your vital business applications from the get go, not to mention it has device drivers for practically every device out there. Why go for an Ubunta which won't even run the essential applicatioins you need to run your business, and which is going to give you device driver hell?
A computer is but a tool. You buy it to help you do something, not to fight OS wars. Most consumesr don't give 2 hoots about OS wars or linux.
Whan are the open source crazies going to get that into their thick heads?
You clearly know nothing about modern linux.
You clearly know nothing about modern linux"
Oh yes I do.
"Modern" Linux, like "ancient" linux, has nightmarish device driver support, certainly not even cloose to the device driver support that Windows has.
It's one of the reasons over 90% of computer buyers CHOOSE to avoid the nightmare that Linux is, and choose Windows instead.
I run guild wars in wine on my sempron 2400 and 128MB geforce2 card. I get about 12 fps which is about a third of what I get running in windows, but I find it passable enough to play without a reboot.
Also, in an enterprise environment MS Office scripts are very common for manipulating data, making connections to thrid party applications, and for small custom applications written with VBA. Open Office can't replicate those features and thus the entire idea of Linux in the workplace fails. Office also does not work in WINE last time I checked due to issues with OLE. OOo needs to work on a replacement for VBA, or some type of VBA implementation in order to make most Office docs convert, and even then connectors designed for Peoplesoft, Oracle, and the like may still not work.
You had to UPgrade Vista to XP?
And Ubuntu recognised network card that XP couldn't?
LMAO!
Now why don't you leave your fairy takes where they belong..in them childrens fairy tale books?
You seem to be pretty good at making things up don't ya?
The fiction department is in the library. This happens to be real life.
@ yacahuma " If MS ever releases a Office for Linux(or people move to Open Office), there will be absolutely no reason to keep buying MS crap"
if if if.
We have been hearing that same garbage about Linux taking out Windows for over 10 years..and after over 10 years in the market, desktop linux is stil stuck at a measly less than 2% of the market.
Hey, are you not the same people who kept claiming that Open Office was "better" than MS Office and it was gonna take out MS Office?
How come you are now yammering on about "if MS Office were on Linux" then?
Go make your own Office suite more consumer friendly. Stop coverting other people's property.
That alone should give Linux a leg up for people who believe in security.
When you start with Vista and build 7 out of it. That's going to mean 7 is improved Vista.
Strange.
Win 7 RC1 has been much faster for me. Even the earlier beta before RC 1 was excellent. I have evsn stopped using Vista altogether in favour of RC1, even if my laptop is dual boot Vista/Win 7 RC1 now.
@ ecartman0:" Matter of fact I kept trying to update Kapersky AV and the darn thing kept freezing. "
Funny. I installed Kapersky AV on several Win 7 computers with no problem whatsoever. Easy as pie.
I hate to break it to some people, but there is some value in buying AV software. Paying for AV software doesn't automatically make one a sucker like some acolytes of AVG's free version seem to think.
Never install Norton, Peter Norton is probably in a constant state of axioty over what symantic has done to his name labled software suite. Norton AV and Norton IS should be considered malware by all definitions. What an ANNOYING program if there ever was one!!!
- by dudesmiles May 17, 2009 5:01 PM PDT
- hehehe
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Reticulata May 18, 2009 4:21 PM PDT
- I have to admit... after reading all the comments above and then coming to this one.. I lol'ed a bit.
- Like this
-
- by Angmarr May 19, 2009 12:28 AM PDT
- i second that!
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 5 pages (210 Comments)