Comments on: Ballmer touts Windows 7 beta, new deals

As he fills the CES keynote duties formerly handled by Bill Gates, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer aims to show that Microsoft can tackle a dominant Google, a resurgent Apple and a weak economy.

[contentcreator--2008]

Improved networking ---- yeah, what I really want is for it to work better with my Macs. ;-)

[Zaunto]

You said it. If it networks easily with Macs, that will be great, but I'm not going to be a "beta tester" for "Windows Vista SP2", i.e. Windows 7.

[Mark_Anderson]

So don't download it then.

Pretty simple, right.

Oh and it does network with Macs.

[ducttape36]

imt rying to download the beta but their site has slowed to a crawl. looks like they already have plenty of people wanting to try it.

[Mac OS XP]

I heard Windows 7 beta will be a free download on Friday from Microsoft?

[Zaunto]

It may be a free upgrade for people who buy a new computer after June 2009, but I seriously doubt Microsoft will make a free upgrade widely available to those of us who bought new PC's in 2007 and 2008.

[Mark_Anderson]

Yes, the Beta is a free download although numbers are limited.

[dangtrade]

opening keynotes aren't the same without bill

[Inconnux]

I have always hated the Mac interface but I hate Vista even more. For the first time in my life I am considering a Mac laptop. I might reconsider if Win7 is released quickly and fixes the nightmare known as Vista but honestly I would buy an XP laptop in a minute. Way to go Microsoft, Vista is driving your customers to the competition.

[goodspeed8701]

who cares if you buy a msc

[t8]

To the comment above.
You really don't know the answer?
Microsoft cares if you buy a Mac.

[nickdangerthirdeye]

well Windows 7 looks almost exactly like vista, and honestly if you consider yourself a power user, you are gonna hate it too, you should just install Ubuntu, and then build your own interface... its alot cheaper too....

[mathcreative]

nickdangerthirdeye I really don't know how easy or hard it is to build a custom interface on Ubuntu or not. But I know that companies for some reason spend a ton of money to build theirs.

[Zaunto]

Yea. And if Windows 7 turns out to be little more than a Vista Service Pack with a slicker interface, I will march right into Apple's loving arms with you and everyone else who tells Microsoft to stick it!!

[Inconnux]

I am adopting a 'wait and see' attitude with Win7. Maybe try it after SP1 (never get a Microsoft OS before its first SP!)
I do consider myself a 'power user' and on my current laptop I run XP and Fedora. I also have an older desktop running Ubuntu. I also consider myself a PC Gamer and if I get a mac I will just dual boot XP for games. Vista is a disaster, I do the IT at my job and other than the one vista laptop that the boss owns I have told people that I refuse to work on any Vista machine. I spent a good part of a day on tech support just trying to get Autocad lite 2007 to work properly on Vista... then I tried to get a 2yr old plot printer to work under vista... after wasting a day I let it be known that there was to be no more Vista machines allowed in the office unless they were to do the tech support themselves.

I am now telling everyone I know to buy a Mac (if they aren't 'techies') and if they are 'computer enthusiasts ', install Linux.

[Mark_Anderson]

t8, actually they don't because the more Mac users there are the more copies of Office 2008 get sold.

[t8]

To the comment above.
You really don't know the answer?
Microsoft cares if you buy a Mac.

[ballmerisanape]

Microsoft is a software company. You can run all of Microsoft's software on a Mac. If anything, this gives them a bigger market.. that is.. if they can begin to write well designed software (including an OS) that can compete in usability.

[Mark_Anderson]

Except Access. And Outlook. And most of their recent games. And...

You get the point.

[inachu]

I hope the pricing will be at a good price and not like when Windows 2000 came out.
When Win 2000 came out at retail it was $700

[ralph spoilsport]

$700 for a OS! - and Microsoft talks about the "Apple tax"?

There were a lot of problems with Vista not the least of which was the multi versions and pricing. How many copies of Windows do they sell? They should at least try to compete with Apple and make one version for the same price as OSX. MS is using it's dominance in the OS market to finance losing products like Zune. I would call this the MS tax.

[Penguinisto]

One thing to consider - most folks never had to pay that much. OEM pricing insured that.

[CrashPad63]

Bought Vista in 2007 for 89.99 Put it on my XPS400 and have loved it ever since.

[guytaur1]

It sounds a lot like Apple. More so than I expected. Microsoft must be kicking themselves over the iphone.

Ipod fair enough they missed that. Adding the phone to the Ipod was something they should have considered when doing the zune.

A sign that Microsoft is not as innovative in the past. This is partly due to where the whole computing world is at of course.

I would suggest that Microsoft would do better to adopt a stable platform and get the kinks out of it. Then they can adapt and improve it. This requires more times between major updates.

Apple does this. It went from Tiger to Leapord. Both OSX. Next is Snow Leopard.
This helps defray the cost of software. Making Apple competitive over the life of a computer I believe.

The more frequent changes in Microsoft Operating systems is too much. Hopefully the focus on convergence will mean poor MS users will get less frequent changes to the entire operating system as has happened on the traditional PC platform.

[amoschinoz]

Great answer t8.

[perspectoff]

My Windows Vista locks up every 2-3 hours (despite all updates), and I am an IT professional. None of my other Windows systems (well, at least since Millenium) did that routinely. Because of the many, many modules that access the Internet constantly, security is very difficult, and Vista does not play nicely with independent security software.

Windows Vista is extremely, extremely slow compared to XP, and an incremental increase in speed might be great for the new boxes coming out with 3-6 Gb of RAM installed, but, you know, not everyone has the budget to double their computer capacity every 3 years just because Microsoft wants to incrementally improve an OS.

The drivers and software compatibility issue has never disappeared. An organization not only has to commit to Windows Vista (and its successor Windows 7), but also must commit upgrading every piece of hardware and software, in order to become compatible with it. That is a major investment, and is the reason 80-85% of Windows users stay with XP. You may note that one of Microsoft's pitches is "Why wait to upgrade to Windows 7 -- start upgrading your hardware and software (to Vista) early so you'll be ready!"

(This goes for the .NET framework, too, but fortunately enough, that is free. )

Each version of Windows often takes out a lot of useful features. As a small example, Windows Vista crippled Windows Movie Maker, taking out the ability to digitize analogue video. This was important to our small company. (Fortunately, there are free open-source alternatives that are better and run on both Linux and Windows).

We discovered that the major committment to transition from XP to Vista (and subsequently Windows 7) was the same commitment to transition to Linux (Kubuntu/Ubuntu), where software and upgrades are free, and support is everywhere, through infinite forums and user groups (which is easier to access than expensive tech support from a proprietary company).

Kubuntu/Ubuntu Linux is far faster, easier to customize, and has far more compatible software than Windows Vista. Software companies are now writing software that is compatible with all three major platforms (Windows, Mac, and Linux), and with virtualization, we can run Windows anyway (through Linux virtualization) if we decide to upgrade our PCs to super-powerful boxes.

So there is no advantage to committing to Windows 7 (or Vista). It is better to commit to Linux and then use Windows 7 in a virtualized instance on a few powerful boxes, should we really see a need for a Windows OS in the future.

[Mark_Anderson]

"My Windows Vista locks up every 2-3 hours (despite all updates), and I am an IT professional. "

Nah, I'm not buying that one. Try harder.

[massfat]

Then stay with XP 'til you get a new computer preloaded with Windows 7. You don't have to upgrade to Vista, especially when businesses are sticking with XP. Vista wasn't really meant to bolster their grip on the business market. As another note, I agree with Mark Anderson. Come on, if you're really an IT professional that gets Vista locks up every 2-3 hours, I suggest you get a new job... Vista works fine as long as you don't get any viruses (which is unlikely on Vista), or install excessive amounts of software without cleaning Vista every once in a while.

[Penguinisto]

I'll find out when I see it.

Vista is usable, but it turns out that it required 2x the RAM (a 4GB CoreDuo laptop instead of a 2GB one), and half the services need to be stripped (plus more than a few custom registry tweaks) to get there.

If Windows 7 can avoid that, then it'll be what was promised with Vista (minus goodies like WinFS and such, but hey - at least it'll work for the average person).

The problem is, just working isn't going to be good enough - without the 'wow' factor, it'll be like trying to tout a Geo Metro as if it were some sort of Mercedes Benz... so what do they intend to do to address that?

[CrashPad63]

You are all wet on this. My 2GB memory 3.0 dual core runs Vista with no lockups. And my apps are a hellova lot faster not too mention the inherent security upgrade over OSX and XP.

[Penguinisto]

It's nice to know your computer doesn't lock up... too bad I never said "lockup" anywhere in my post.

OTOH, it took 2x the previous RAM just to get a laptop running Vista to have the same response times and performance as the same laptop running XP. Maybe you can tell us where "lockup" fits in...

[nickdangerthirdeye]

Does anyone get the impression that windows 7 is just going to be Vista B? Kinda like 95 and 98 both had Second (and third in the case of 95) editions?

[Zaunto]

Everything I've seen so far shows me that Windows 7 is little more than a service pack with interface tweaks that runs on lower spec hardware, like Vista should have. I'm typing this on a single core 2.1Ghz Celeron laptop with 2gb of ram with Vista Basic. If Windows 7 won't upgrade Vista Basic and provide anything more than reducing the intrusion of UAC, speed tweaks that should've been in Vista anyway, and hardware compatibility that we should've had to start with, I won't be a Windows 7 customer. Microsoft is in serious trouble and Apple is a huge threat on the horizon, particularly if they ever get wise and reduce the price of their hardware.

[Mark_Anderson]

No. But then I don't read roughlydrafted.

[The_happy_switcher]

He also said that the bad economy didn't matter if you were an innovative company. This implies, of course, that somehow in his deluded mind Microsoft is an innovative company and they have nothing to worry about. LOL, what a joker.

[Zaunto]

Balmer was also in denial about the problems with Vista, but that didn't cause a love fest for Vista. The sad fact is that, even if the majority of us stayed with XP, Microsoft still sold us the licenses for that via one method (boxed retail) or another (purchase of a new computer). They get your money no matter which version of Windows you choose. Someone needs to wake up over there in Redmond and smell the coffee. We all want an operating system that is bloat free, fast and responsive, with a simple interface that is customizable to our liking, and compatibility with our hardware and software. If it doesn't turn out to be Windows 7, then for me, it may end up being OSX on a Mac. What the heck. I'll still be able to dual boot into Windows if I must run some Windows app that doesn't run on the Mac, but at the moment, the only Windows Apps I need that don't run on Mac are video games.

[RompStar_420]

OS X is the shiznick, no need for WIndows no more and Linux does everything else!

[mnbulldog]

Apple fans - love em. Great it runs on about 5 pieces of hardware. Windows runs on millions of pieces of hardware and things you don't even think about like Telxon handheld scanners, video scoreboards, etc. And it works 99% of time. Even an Apple engineer would be (are since I work with some) impressed with how well it works considering the amount of stuff it needs to work with. Apple is fine product - if you are willing to only buy the limited amount of hardware direct from Apple. Other than that - you got nothing coming.

And NO ONE can justify the $500 or more you would spend for an Apple to just surf and do email which is what a majority of users do. Because, regardless of what you believe (and it is belief not fact) about Vista - it does email and surfing just fine. It also does a darn good job with pics. And until recently - Vista with Picasa made a joke of iPhoto on Mac OS X. Now at least you can get Picasa for Mac, too.

I use both and find Microsoft haters and Apple lovers just hilarious because usually they are completely uninformed and blame some problem they created, or from a third-party on the OS.

Is Vista great? Nah ... but the problems are so over exaggerated it is hilarious.

The best is seeing Apple making boot camp a part of the Mac OS. And you have to install a retail copy of the Windows OS for it to work - yep MS is still making money and awesome to see everyone running Windows on their Mac because 90% of their corporate stuff won't work with a Mac.

Apple's just a niche. Until they can install the OS on millions of different form factors and devices to make the world run (yes it runs on Windows whether you want to admit it or not) it will be nothing more than a niche.

[Penguinisto]

Seeing your post from a professional perspective, you're pretty funny.

re: "Windows runs on millions of pieces of hardware and things you don't even think about"

Windows only runs on three architectures now: x86, Itanium, and ARM (for Windows CE/Mobile).

OSX can run on x86, PowerPC, and ARM. That makes the two pretty even.

Meanwhile, Linux happily runs on: x86, Itanium, ARM, MIPS, PowerPC/Cell, Sparc, zSeries, RISC, DSP, AVR, Blackfin, C167, Coldfire, COP8, eZ-series, FR-V, H8, HT48, M16C, M32C, MIPS, MSP430, PIC, PowerPC, R8C, SHARC, ST6, SuperH, TLCS,, Tricore, V850, XE8000, Z80, and etc. etc. etc. Pretty much anything from small embedded systems (many of which are listed here) up to mainframes... no sweat.

So, tell us more about how much more informed you are than the rest of us poor plebes...

/P

[Mark_Anderson]

Uh, Penguin...

By millions we mean virtually every third party manufacturer of computer systems in the world producing multiple items with nearly infinitely configurable options. OS X runs on... Apple hardware.

Yeah. OK.

[SeizeCTRL]

Am I the only one who thinks that Steve Ballmer looks like the Dick Cheney of the tech world?

[vsa1977]

Microsoft is ready to release the Beta version on Windows 7. But it seems like Microsoft has copied most of its new features from Apple Mac OS X Leopard? Find out the new features taken from Mac OS X for yourself here...
http://smarttechnology-guru.blogspot.com/2009/01/microsoft-copies-apples-innovation-to.html