I'll wait for Windows 7 before buying a new PC
The $50 Windows 7 Upgrade?
(Credit: Microsoft)I need a new computer. Badly. My old iMac, which I'm using to write this now, has seen better days. My Windows machines, strewn across the house, are old and tired. But I'm unwilling to buy a new computer today. It's not that I haven't seen machines that I really would like to have, or that I don't have a desire to build my own. But there's a single factor that's forcing me to wait: Windows 7.
I'm done with buying Macs for a while. I really do love my iMac and my MacBook is my trusty companion when I travel, but after using Windows 7, I now know that I'm ready to jump back into the world of Windows. In my testing, Windows 7 isn't just an outstanding operating system that provides an ideal experience, but it's also a great alternative to Mac OS X. I find it superior to Apple's software on almost every level. It's that good.
But there's more to this story than Windows 7's superiority. I want to wait for Windows 7 for a number of reasons.
Windows Vista? Nah.
If I don't want to run Mac OS X anymore, what makes you think I would even consider running Vista? I can't stand it.
I will say that Vista improved after SP1 was released, but what still plagues the software--bloat and resource-intensiveness, to just name a few issues--is present even after Service Pack 1. In fact, if I was forced to choose, I would rather use XP than Vista, since it's more reliable, doesn't require a new, powerful computer to run, and forgoes beauty for usability. Windows 7, on the other hand, finally blends beauty with usability. Why buy something that doesn't offer both when its successor will?
Windows 7 release date
There's another issue that I can't overlook before I decide to buy my next computer: I believe Windows 7 will be released in 2009. I realize Microsoft has said that "it will be released when it's ready," but Windows 7 is near-final as a beta and the company is already moving forward with Release Candidate 1. It looks like Microsoft is really hustling this time.
From a financial standpoint, it's the right move. Vista hasn't performed nearly as well as Microsoft would have liked and businesses are loath to switch to it, even though Ballmer and Co. are trying to coax them into switching. Microsoft simply needs to get Windows 7 out the door as soon as possible to start repairing its strained relationships with businesses.
Assuming that's Microsoft's plan, how much sense would it really make for me to buy Vista? Sure, I need a new computer now and it would be nice to have one soon, but if I'm intent on buying a Windows machine, I don't see any reason to buy one packed with an operating system that will be made obsolete in a matter of months. It doesn't make any sense.
Best of the best? You bet
Say what you will about Microsoft and Vista or the value of Mac OS X, but I'm a firm believer that Windows 7 will be remembered as one of the greatest operating systems Microsoft has ever released.
I want my next computer to run the very best operating system on the market. And although that may be Mac OS X today, when Windows 7 is released, I think it will easily capture the crown from Apple. And as long as the final build confirms my speculation, I'll have no problem holding off.
I'm willing to wait.
Check out Don's Digital Home podcast, Twitter feed, and FriendFeed.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
There's no need to even try and persuade him... I figure that it will be more fun to just let him find out the hard way. I have a feeling that his decision will likely teach him the lessons that no amount of persuasion (be it positive or negative) will do.
But Don, "one of the greatest operating systems Microsoft has ever released" and it's not even released yet? I think Snow Leopard will probably be pretty cool, but I'm reserving my definitive statements of undeniable superiority for at least two point releases!
I figure that sometimes, the most effective lessons are also the most painful.
You're such a bigoted fool it's pretty amazing anyone is willing to help you log on to a computer. Do you ever get tired of being such a myopic little farm animal? Seriously, what are you going to do when Jobs isn't around to tell you what to think, and what to buy? Do you have someone lined up to fill your microencephalic head with nonsense after Jobs or will you leave it to some random commercial on TV to give your life meaning?
Face,
Just a thought.
IMO, that was and is the best OS Microsoft ever put out.
Runner up to Windows 2000 would be Windows 95 as it got everyone off of 3.1 or 3.11
I too will never run Vista as my primary OS
Whoa! Better slow down on the Kook Aid. Windows 7 looks pretty promising, but it's a tad bit early to be making those kinds of claims. Besides, I still say Windows 7 is NOT good enough to make most people leave Windows XP.
I spent the majority of my Win time (most recently) using variations of Win 2k server (and 2k3 which was a downgrade IMO). Prior to this, versions of Windows hardly qualified as OSs. Compared to this, XP is also a downgrade. I've not spent a lot of time with it, but enough in helping friends and family fix their systems. I've not used Vista much, but I doubt I have to if even Win users are sticking with XP. Win7 would have to make a major jump for me to really consider it even in the same arena with OSX, let alone passing it up.
yep!
The initial benchmarks are promising, especially for beta code.
The executive summary is here:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_7_gaming_performance/page16.asp
The EULA disallows the publication of benchmarking results for Windows 7... or have they changed that recently?
We actually ditched XP for Vista a while ago on account of Direct X 10.1 and nVidia and AMD gettign the drivers right. It's not been an issue since May 2008.
Do try to keep up.
Windows 7 already looks better than OS X but that won't really matter to OS X sales. People buy Apple because they wrap their OS inside a pretty "aluminum carved box."
Are you kidding me? I have been using Windows XP for six years. I am so sick of the looks of Windows Classic and XP Themes. And I know that upgrading OS' just for the theme in stupid. Its just one ov the many things that I can't wait to change. I can not wait a second to switch OS' from XP to 7. And I've tried a few Linux OS' and OS X, and I am a windows guy. Linux had too many problems, and OS X was great and simple, but just too simple. Windows 7 is more than enough to get people away from XP. Plus since OS X 10.6 isn't going to have too many new features, Windows 7 might even pull some MAC users into the Windows world.
But the truth is that only time will tell, and for all we Windows 7 could be the next Windows ME. But god i hope not.
MAcs r not only about looks, they r also about making it easier for the user to use !
the dock is the single best way to launch programs,
spaces/expose is a efficient way to multi-task
Spotlight and Quicksiver r the best keyboard launchers to date etc. etc.
plus the there's no need to constantly do re-installs and
the lack of Anti-virus/spyware maintenance work is great too !
also OSX also has a fast bootup/shutdown time, the sleep uses very little power
People who think that all Mac users care about looks r ignorant !
I'm not bashing windows ,
just saying the people who buy macs do so because of other reasons and not the pretty Aluminum casing !
IMO Macs r like Luxury cars and
Custom built Pc's r like SUVs
SUVs Do more than Luxury cars and have much more power
But luxury cars make it easier and more fun for the driver !
there's a market for both as they serve different needs !
I ran Vista on a Dell Dimension 8300 (March 2004) from beta 1 in August of 2005 (3.2 GHz P4 HT, 512 MBs of RAM, nVidia Geforce FX 5200 128 MB AGP), up to build 5308. Builds beyond that started acting groggy, so I upgraded to 2 GBs of RAM and it was like night and day. I have ran every build of Vista up Vista SP1 right now on this system and I am completely satisfied with the performance. I am running the Windows 7 beta on a partition right now too. But back to the point, your negative views of the OS is very unfounded.
Anybody denying Vista today because of compatibility will encounter a similar situation with Windows 7 because it is based on the Vista SP1/Server 2008 SP1 kernel. But I am sure anything you run today on Vista will guarantee a smooth move to Vista. My point is, holding out against Vista because of inaccurate information about the OS is not good advice. Windows Vista runs mighty well and its very compatible.
I've got 2GB of RAM and a 2GHz dual-core processor, and a brand-new install of Vista still stutters occasionally. Is there a reason my OS should be using more system resources than my apps? Personally, I'll stick with an OS where the OS's usage of RAM and CPU cycles can be measured in fractions of a percent...not tens of percents.
Besides, Linux runs more of my favorite Windows games and apps than Windows anymore...Microsoft would be better off replacing the whole 'compatibility mode' with Wine.
I don't disagree with you - 4GB of RAM (and stripping out half of the crap services) makes Vista run halfway decently (until you do file transfers, but that's another argument). Too bad I can get far more performance out of the same specifications if I had Linux or OSX parked on it instead.
It's all a question of where you put your resources - I prefer to push my CPU cycles towards the applications I use (then again, doing CG renders tends to demand more CPU and RAM than, say, email...) If you want to sacrifice yours to the OS, cool. It's your computer.
"Besides, Linux runs more of my favorite Windows games and apps than Windows anymore...Microsoft would be better off replacing the whole 'compatibility mode' with Wine."
They must be old games. I can barely get any games that need Direct3d to work.
Windows XP was released in 2001
Windows Vista was released in 2006
That's a five year gap. Try running Windows XP on something 5 years prior to its release (1997). So trying to run Vista on something from 2001, is like trying to run it on something from 1998.
I know exactly what you're talking about - Superfetch in particular, where Vista tries to manage RAM like *nix always has. The problem is that Vista doesn't do a very good job of it, and requires a lot of RAM just to get itself out of the user's way.
The funny part is that you try to use age as an argument against or for a specific OS version. The argument doesn't wash - at all... when the new has less performance than the old, and there is otherwise no difference in compatibility and usage patterns, then why bother with the new? For the sake of newness? Because Microsoft needs the money? Why?
I run Vista currently, it came with my new laptop but saying that I would download Windows Mail / Movie Maker / Photo Gallery because they are essential? They are garbage versions of better applications. I would rather use Gmail, etc. a myriad of video editing programs, or Picasa. Why force bloat me with garbage I can't take off. (of course I can hide some of it but not really get rid of it)
Don't even get me started on the DRIVER STORE 1.2 GB or the 6GB + WINSXS folder. Maybe the WORST handling of Dll's ever. (I have an idea, just stored a billion copies of the same crap, it will make it easier you know)
Vista treats its users like idiots.
1. People are too stupid to install their own drivers, HERE THEY ALL ARE
2. PUT EVERYTHING ON THERE!!! I don't need or want half the crap that they install. Let me choose to pare it down to what I want.
In the first sentence you say, "What's bloated about Vista?", and in the second, you declare that the OS was received because OEMs sold 512MB systems. THAT is why Vista is considered bloated; because an OS eating up most of 512MB of RAM is absolutely stupid. Microsoft has stacked one leaky abstraction on top of another; the whole OS is a pile of noodles that results in a horrible experience. Performance is slow, malware runs rampant, security holes are omnipresent; and that in spite of the obnoxious near-constant and utterly numbing, "Do you want to allow that?" popups.
Meanwhile, Vista got a deservedly bad name for leading the charge into HDCP. When Vista starts automatically downgrading your video because of HDCP, it deserves a bad name. And *that* added bloat, too.
Meanwhile, what windows needs MOST is a way for users to reliably control what is starting up and what is running. Any average user just trying to use their computer ends up with a plethora of unwanted, unneeded programs running at startup and in the background. Add all those resources up, and that's bloat. It's not Windows bloat, but it is windows-ENABLED bloat.
And the most important rule of cache design is that empty cache memory is wasted cache memory. Empty cache isn't doing you any good. It's expensive, high-speed memory sucking down power for zero benefit. The primary mission in the life of every cache is to populate itself as quickly as possible with the data that's most likely to be needed-- and to consistently deliver a high "hit rate" of needed data retrieved from the cache. Otherwise you're going straight to the hard drive, mister, and if you have to ask how much going to the hard drive will cost you in performance, you can't afford it. Vista treats system memory like a cache much more aggressively and effectively than any other version of Windows to date. The less free memory I have, the better; every byte of memory should be actively working on my behalf at all times.
extotherule: blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/11/19/disk-space.aspx
I am sorry you refuse to run Windows Vista on nothing but a 18 GB hard disk when storage availability is plentiful.
Whoa, whoa! Slow down there! Since when is even *ONE* of hose slow, bloated applications, security-hole-ridden essential?
I run a mix - Ubuntu Linux, XP, Vista 32 and Vista 64. I've had some experience with OSX as well. There's no way Vista *can't* be called bloated, and a resource hog. Vista 64 is better, but it's still slower than XP on the same hardware (and nowhere even close to Ubuntu - on the same hardware; I multi-boot my AMD64 box).
And Windows Live is about as essential to me as a tricycle is to a starfish.
You toil the day away doing this, as you drink $7 latte after latte thinking, "How awesome is this? I drink $7 latte's, use a Macintosh, iPhone, iPod while my Mom stays up stairs and cooks dinner for me upstairs." You are a unique special little flower like all the other Apple drones.
Aside from some compatibility issues with some software i am running most of my apps on W7 (video, sound, office, games, utilities, etc), Swithching back to XP...no way. Although W7 and XP are in par as far as speed, W7 as a better overall experience even in beta version.
Just one comment to Don, why wait switching? Building your own PC is a smarter choice, more value for less money. I have W7 running on a "refreshed" 3 year old compaq that now has an ASUS MOBO with a Phenom CPU and NVIDIA GT8600, all for less than $500.
@tcr071: I hope you can - this isn't exactly like the NT days where you can tweak the BIOS clock ;)
MS isn't about the repeat the "launch date history" of Vista.
How did that work out, d'ya think?
Oh, the fact that Windows Vista Home Premium doesn't come with offline file support is also a drag. I used to have her "My Documents" folder point to a directory on my desktop for ease of backup with offline files turned on so she could still work when disconnected from the network. Now, I have SyncToy running on a schedule (couple of times a day) and am hoping that does the trick.
I am considering buying a new pc, ive heard so much praise about windows 7 that im definately going to hold out till then and dual boot with ubuntu.
What I LOVE about OS X is the fact that my contacts, images, movies, chats, music is available to any application. They are not isolated. They aren't locked up in some cryptic .pst outlook file that corrupts easily. OS X is about sharing and using standards to connect applications together so you can be more efficient using whatever applications you want (not just Apple's).
Having switched to a Mac 4 years ago after waiting for the hell hole that is and was Longhorn/Vista and now seeing modest updates for Windows 7? I'll stick with what works - my Mac. Oh, and after switching my parents over to a Macbook and iMac, I've received 3 tech support phone calls in the last 3 years. Those were to upgrade the RAM and most recently a hard drive. For me that is the best reason to NEVER go back to Windows again.
Also, you do not need to use outlook in windows.
I do give you that Windows GUI sucks from the get go. I prefer the look and operability of Gnome (which is better but similar to OSX).
To me it seems like for what you use your computer you should have gotten a $500 netbook and put Ubuntu on it, as opposed to spending however much you did on your overpriced mac.
Paying for OS that does everything a free one can? no thanks. At least windows has DirectX
You think GNOME is better than Mac OX X's Aqua? It's time for a new pair if glasses my friend. GNOME, while pretty cool and a good effort, doesn't come close. And KDE, also has some cool features. But neither one of them come close to Aqua and probably never will. I"m a fan of Linux, but the community is, and probably forever will be playing catch up to Aqua.
I've only used Aqua for a short time (few hours) and was really not all that impressed. This is where personal preference comes in, and Gnome just seems easier to use with all applications instinctivly being exactly where I want them to be.
Aqua looks cooler, yes. But from functionality standpoint I prefer Gnome. If I were trying to show off how cool my laptop looks, then my arguement would be different.
And thus is the problem. You haven't used it for very long. You are used to Windows, probably started out on it. So you will always give it preferential treatment. Aqua has it's shortcomings, yes, but it's far better than anything else out there at the moment. If KDE or GNOME or even Microsoft come out with something better, I'll be the first to congratulate them. But I'm not holding my breath.
You cited that all your applications are right where you want them. What in the world is the Dock?! You have the Dock in Mac OS X to put all your most used applications (there are shortcomings to this approach I know). The Apple menu isn't like it was in previous versions of the Mac OS, but it also has a trick up its sleeve, Services.
Just a note, I've really sat down and used KDE, GNOME, Mac OS X (Aqua), and every version of Windows since 3.11. The best so far is Mac OS X. But that's not to say that even it can not be better. There is always room for improvement.
I don't give windows preferential treatment, please see my original post.
And of course I am not a hardheaded nut like some people out there, so my opinion can always change with the circumstances. If I had the money I would get a macbook just to have one and such. Since I don't have the money apple requires you to spend on a desent laptop I am forced to be the "observer" to what OSX is.
I'll see if I can borrow a macbook and mess around with it some more, maybe I'll like it. But as of right now, and my experiences that have occured up to this point I prefer Gnome. In the near future that, of course, may change.
"Paying for OS that does everything a free one can? no thanks. At least windows has DirectX"
Uh, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but doing video and audio editing, while it can be done, in Linux is a nightmare. And yes, I do use Linux and I also use BSD. The same sentiment applies to editing the aforementioned in Windows unless you are prepared to spend some serious money. But if you do that the price of your Windows machine has vastly exceeded the cost of getting a Mac with the software you need already included. Kind of defeats the purpose.
It is no coincidence that a lot of my Windows using friends bring there audio and video files to my house so we can do the job on my Mac. But then, you really do get what you pay for most of the time. If you want to play games get Windows. If you want to have fun without spending a lot of money get Linux/BSD. If you want to get some work done get OS X.
By the way, I've used extensively: Apple ][, Commodore 64, DOS, Windows 3.11-Vista, Amiga, Linux, Solaris, AIX, an Mac OS 7-X.
The family members who have made the switch to Apple are self-sufficient.
Anything from Microsoft is a ticking time bomb, and I'm sure that Windows 7 will be no different (BTW, Apple relased "System 7" back in the early 1990s...with all the names available, couldn't MS have picked out something a little more up-to-date and cool? Yet again...copying Apple!)
Vista is so "heavy." I think it's funny that everyone here is tweaking their systems so Vista can run within 4 GB of memory? Mac OS X can run within ONE GB of memory well, and very well within only two. When I sold my old iBook, I didn't even realize I was using PhotoShop, Flash, GoLive, Dreamweaver, InDesign, and all sorts of high-end graphics software with only 1GB of memory. It just WORKED.
Mac guy: Nuh uh, Herb and Garlic cream cheese is where it's at. It looks better, it tastes better, and it's more powerful.
Windows guy: Well, I tried a tiny store sample of herb and garlic cream cheese and I didn't like it.
Linux guy: What about Lox?
Mac and Windows guys: Shut the F@#k up!
and so true its actually sad
Windows guy: He can have a bagel but it better have plain cream cheese on it. Most people choose plain cream cheese, it is obviously superior.
Mac guy: Nuh uh, Herb and Garlic cream cheese is where it's at. It looks better, it tastes better, and it's more powerful.
Windows guy: Well, I tried a tiny store sample of herb and garlic cream cheese and I didn't like it.
Linux guy: What about Lox?
Mac and Windows guys: Shut the F@#k up!"
Mac guy: yea I paid about 3 times as much for my bagel and cream cheese, it looks a little bit better and has extra features like chives in it but on a whole it's ok. It will make my breath stink and I will annoy people constantly with my smelly breath but I am a unique little flower like all Mac drones.
Keep up the good work!
OK.
Lnconnux posts this crap in every Windows 7 article. He is a drone.
Blackcomb was renamed Vienna in early 2006,[8] and again to Windows 7 in 2007.[3] In 2008, it was announced that Windows 7 would also be the official name of the operating system.[9][10] The first external release to select Microsoft partners came in January 2008 with Milestone 1 (build 6519).[11]"
Vista is actually a copy of Windows 7. LONGHORN (VISTA) BORROWED ELEMENTS FROM BLACKCOMB (WINDOWS 7). get your dam facts straight.
Um, Don.... that isn't really saying much. So what might one of the other 'best' ones be?
If you are correct, I'll take a look at it when it arrives. However, I guess I'm wondering what is wrong with OSX? What magic tricks does Win7 do that I might need? Will the mouse scroll nicely, or text selection be fixed? Will the basic operation of the OS not feel like a kludge job? Will I not have to worry about getting a virus? Will Keynote be available for it... or apps like Nisus Writer or NoteBook, or iLife suite?
There would have to be a LOT of improvement to temp me from OSX... and I'm not really holding my breath at this point. If I ever saw an actual innovation from M$, I might think otherwise.
I dont play games on pc's. They will always suck in comparison to gaming consoles.
Personally, I have no need for gaming beyond my PS3... but if I did, I'd just install Windows on my Mac anyway. ;o) (But, yes it would then be Windows... but I'd only have to run it long enough to get into the game... for all else, I'd use OSX).
From what I've seen and read and experienced, any game that has been made to run on more OS's than just Windows will actually run faster on any other OS. Even when those games are run through WINE or Cedega, they run faster when not run on Windows.
Actually, even when Windows is run through emulation software on Linux, the game still runs faster through the VM than it does in a native Windows environment.
For the few games that can't be run through WINE or through Cedega or through a VM running Windows, then and only then will Windows run it better, only because there's nothing to compare it to.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*Breathes*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh dear. That's priceles.
If you want innovation check out the Windows 7 taskbar. Apple playing catch up in a big way.
Do you have any reasons to disprove me. On a gaming console you dont have to worry about your gpu being good enough to play the game at a good fps level. Also can any of your computers show as good graphics as a ps3 for even double the cost? Are games on the computer as intuitive as on a wii. Then their is the xbox 360 with one of the best online gameplay in existence.
If you're suggesting for a moment that, for example, a gamepad is as good a control mechanism as WASD and mouse for FPS or tht consoles have anything that compares with WoW or Sims 2 then by all means point them out.
Consoles are nice and are a good alternative to the PC but they are in no way better. As for GPUs, I think you'll find that replacing a GPU is considerably cheaper than buying a new console.
I run an AMD dual core, 2gb ram and Nvidia 8600 card, cost me the same price as a PS3 (no monitor, but then again I just used my old one) and if you check out Gamespot, they did a graphics comparison with a PC, PS3 and Xbox360 and the PC was easily the best graphics wise. I have yet to play a game that has had fps issues. You can easily get a budget PC to vastly outperform a 'cutting edge' PS3 at the same price.
At least Nintendo improved the controller for sports games.
Are you talking about Xbox or PS3? The PS3 is a pretty advance piece or hardware. I'm sure one could build a more powerful PC, but a dual core AMD with Nvidia 8600 ain't going to do it. Have there been more sophisticated games developed for the PC? Probably. Has the potential of the PS3 been fully tapped yet? Nope. You might be right about the controllers... but again this has nothing really to do with capability.... a PS3 could easily take a keyboard, mouse, etc. if some game developer really wanted to utilize it. I'm quite happy with my PS3 BT controller.... it has more buttons already than I want to worry about. ;o) Plus, I'm pretty addicted to the best game on the planet.... Warhawk! I've never heard of, or have seen anything like it on PC or any other console.
- by totalmonkey February 19, 2009 11:31 AM PST
- The fact that Don won't buy a computer based upon the pre-installed operating system says alot about the level of technical literacy he has. For most normal computer users (or non-users), I can understand that mentality, but it seems a little odd coming from a technology columnist. Doesn't he know that you can install whatever operating system you want on any machine as long as said OS is compatible with the processor, chipset, etc.? (Arguments about legitimacy of installing X-brand OS on non-X-brand hardware in violation of EULA or terms of use aside.)
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- by QMT February 19, 2009 11:34 AM PST
- There's no point in paying the "Windows Tax" twice.
-
-
- by homercles82 February 20, 2009 8:10 AM PST
- "by QMT February 19, 2009 11:34 AM PST
-
-
- by ferretboy88 February 20, 2009 8:38 AM PST
- My copy of vista was $79. Is that a lot of money? Why are tech people so cheap.
-
-
- by pentest February 20, 2009 11:52 AM PST
- $79 for Vista? You got ripped off badly.
-
-
- by Renegade Knight February 20, 2009 12:24 PM PST
- @QMT
-
-
- by homercles82 February 20, 2009 6:43 PM PST
- @Renegade Knight
-
-
- by nSeika February 22, 2009 10:03 PM PST
- @homercles82
-
-
Showing 1 of 5 pages (251 Comments)Still, I do appreciate his arguments, in terms of how a regular consumer might view Windows and MacOS, though I don't necessarily agree with those arguments. It's like me having an argument with an astrophysicist on the nature of dark matter; or me arguing with a heart surgeon on best surgical practices.
Buying a Vista PC now, then having to pay for 7 later just seems silly.
There's no point in paying the "Windows Tax" twice.
Buying a Vista PC now, then having to pay for 7 later just seems silly. "
IF YOU BUY WINDOWS VISTA AFTER JULY 1ST YOU GET A FREE UPGRADE COUPON FOR THE COMPARABLE VERSION OF WINDOWS 7
***REPEAT FOR DRONES***
IF YOU BUY WINDOWS VISTA AFTER JULY 1ST YOU GET A FREE UPGRADE COUPON FOR THE COMPARABLE VERSION OF WINDOWS 7
IF YOU BUY WINDOWS VISTA AFTER JULY 1ST YOU GET A FREE UPGRADE COUPON FOR THE COMPARABLE VERSION OF WINDOWS 7
IF YOU BUY WINDOWS VISTA AFTER JULY 1ST YOU GET A FREE UPGRADE COUPON FOR THE COMPARABLE VERSION OF WINDOWS 7
IF YOU BUY WINDOWS VISTA AFTER JULY 1ST YOU GET A FREE UPGRADE COUPON FOR THE COMPARABLE VERSION OF WINDOWS 7
I got a legal version through MSDNAA for free and I feel I got ripped off. It is not even worth the cost of the CD I burned it on.
You nailed it. If the MS fix to Vista is 7 and they are going to pull the plug on Vista it makes zero sense to spend a single dime on a doomed OS.
@homercles82
Why even muck with a free upgrade? It's so much cleaner and kess work to get 7 installed fresh. Besides it's the Vista Upgrades that soured me on Vista. The computers it came native on worked better.
I agree with you but for people who need a computer at that time just buy it and upgrade later. I was pointing out how stupid QMT was by saying WHY PAY FOR IT TWICE DURRR when Apple users have to pay for "service packs"
Never heard of that around here. Is the program limited to America only ?
There's also the trouble with re-installing. I'd install the new computer with Windows 7 beta anyway. When the final product arrive, I'll have to reinstall on several units and it would take time.
But yes, there's peoples who doesn't have great urgency to upgrade right now.