Windows 7 - Linux Killer?

[NintendoTogepi]

Anyone worried about this? Windows 7 actually looks like it might be decent. It'll dominate the netbook market and there will be a massive marketing push.

What do you think?

[jimi_hendrix]

no

the people that use linux use it for a reason and wont care

</thread>

[crl0901]

I don't think so. Linux has a very strong, motivated community behind it. It's not going anywhere.

[marco123]

Anyone worried about this? Windows 7 actually looks like it might be decent. It'll dominate the netbook market and there will be a massive marketing push.

What do you think?

Nope.

Stopped caring about Windows years ago. Don't think many people here use Linux just because they are waiting for Windows to come out of "Alpha".

[RedSingularity]

All i have to say is............nope.

[Skripka]

The easy solution to cure all these market share problems Linux is said to have, and that some loose sleep over?












Open a nice Woodchuck Apple Cider, and not give a **** what OS others use

[Eisenwinter]

The easy solution to cure all these market share problems Linux is said to have, and that some loose sleep over?












Open a nice Woodchuck Apple Cider, and not give a **** what OS others use
Big +1 here.

Who cares about Windows? I sure don't.

I use Linux, I love Linux, and I will not stop using it.

Linux is my home.

[Name change]

Only if Windows7 home edition would be available for free, then I would use it.

[MasterNetra]

Nah, it may slow linux's growth but its unlikely to hurt it.

[jordilin]

I doubt it. Linux is the Windows killer I would say. It killed windows for me many years ago. When you have the power of freedom and choice...

[KhaaL]

idk, i've been wanting to switch over to windoze lately seeing how hard it is to install the latest closed-source drivers from vendors and how performance is worse in ubuntu than in windows for me.

problem is, windows stands for everything that i'm not for so i'm with ubuntu right now only because of principle.

[Giant Speck]

Despite the fact I think Windows 7 is a good OS, I think we all know the answer to "is it a Linux killer?"

And that answer is:

DUH..... NOOOOO!

[jordilin]

Only if Windows7 home edition would be available for free, then I would use it.

Even if it were free, I would not use it because the code would be closed. Not free as in beer, but as in freedom.

[Name change]

You see here I'm different than many Linux users. Yes I like the idea of free as in freedom software, but I don't feel it will ever catch on.
Especially if it's understood under very "un-free" RMS typology.
I'm more for BSD like freedom.

[xg43x]

The easy solution to cure all these market share problems Linux is said to have, and that some loose sleep over?












Open a nice Woodchuck Apple Cider, and not give a **** what OS others use
Dark and Dry Woodchuck Apple Cider is damn good!

[neppakyo]

Heh. I vote no.

I like the option of being able to totally change my desktop from gnome, kde, enlightenment etc.

And windows7 steals effects and **** OSX and linux has had for 5 years :p

[Skripka]

Dark and Dry Woodchuck Apple Cider is damn good!

1 good beer is better than all the cheap American Pisswater in the world. I do have my standards. :D

[WatchingThePain]

Who cares what they make next?, after Winblows Fista ..I'm just gonna sit back and wait to hear all the complaints.

[kelvin spratt]

Widows7 I don't think so installed it played with it its out of date. and in 64bt with just basic programs is over 20Gb uninstalled it.

[mamamia88]

i can honestly say i don't give a crap what windows does anymore.

[gn2]

What do you think?

I think that I will not use W7 for the same reasons that I don't use Xp or Vista.

[73ckn797]

I loaded the beta but was not impressed. How many will actually want to pay the price when it is released? Probably just as many as paid for Vista.

I still use XP but that is a necessity for my work in a few cases.

[neppakyo]

If i need to use windows for anything, think i'll fire up vmware and run XP from there

[ryuchao009]

I will probably always keep a copy of windows around for those handful of applications that dont run well w/ linux and for the added wine support (big gamer here lol). As for windows 7 being a threat,NEVER. It's really not much different than vista (NT 6.1 vs 6.0) just like xp was really just win2k only nicer looking and "user-friendly".

[neppakyo]

As for windows 7 being a threat,NEVER. It's really not much different than vista (NT 6.1 vs 6.0) just like xp was really just win2k only nicer looking and "user-friendly".

And a new set of program incompatibilities

[FuturePilot]

no

the people that use linux use it for a reason and wont care

</thread>

qft

[transgress]

I have been using win7 for a while now. It's really good. I miss the principles that linux stands for, but I use non-free on linux as well. When this beta locks up in august I may switch back, but win7 is good and you can bet that there will be a bulge of upgrades when it comes out. Think of all the businesses and individuals trying to skip vista. As it goes, I don't think it can kill linux, but it will almost certainly slow its growth.

Not to mention, I think most people fail to realize that linux is still currently very much a niche OS. For people with certain ideas of what an OS should be, for people who don't want to pay for a closed OS, and all the other linux reasons. It, however, is not desktop ready for many reasons. It can't hit markets that require constant presentations, because powerpoint just murders oo.o's presentation. It is just too much extra effort currently. It can't hit the market that requires RAD software such as vs.net and can't hit the professional graphic design markets for lack of Adobe. Things are slightly improving, but we don't have the push or purpose to put those things into linux. Most linux users (i'd be willing to bet over 95%) would not pay for vs.net or adobe. They might pay for MS Office if it were available (i would). But we know that won't be happening anytime soon. So linux has a few choices, hope and pray adobe and MS just start making linux programs for the hell of it, or make equivalents that are actually equal.

So, no, it won't kill linux, but it certainly will slow it down even more.

[Eisenwinter]

And windows7 steals effects and **** OSX and linux has had for 5 years :p

Windows 7 does not steal effects, or anything else, from Linux and OSX.

Beep Media Player is a fork of XMMS, does it mean it steals it's interface?

No. It draws inspiration from XMMS, just like Microsoft did from Linux, regarding the Windows 7 GUI.

What is it with people saying Windows stole this, Windows stole that - don't you feel proud Microsoft decided to code features which have been already present in Linux?

This is what Open Source is about. Freedom. The freedom to take ideas, and inspiration, from other projects, and not be viewed as a theif, or as a ripoff.

The freedom to continue and improve ideas.

Anybody who says Microsoft "stole" something from Linux, is a fanboy, in the bad sense of the word.

You can only say Microsoft stole something, if they saw a feature Linux already had, and claimed it to be their own original work, rather than saying they drew inspiration from Linux.

[neppakyo]

Windows 7 does not steal effects, or anything else, from Linux and OSX.

Beep Media Player is a fork of XMMS, does it mean it steals it's interface?

No. It draws inspiration from XMMS, just like Microsoft did from Linux, regarding the Windows 7 GUI.

What is it with people saying Windows stole this, Windows stole that - don't you feel proud Microsoft decided to code features which have been already present in Linux?

This is what Open Source is about. Freedom. The freedom to take ideas, and inspiration, from other projects, and not be viewed as a theif, or as a ripoff.

The freedom to continue and improve ideas.

Anybody who says Microsoft "stole" something from Linux, is a fanboy, in the bad sense of the word.

I should of worded it better and not use the word steal.

But windows tends to take features of other OS's and badly implement them..


With vista, having it idle for a few hours, i noticed it was taking up over 1GB of ram, not sure if its from their effects or such but damn thats a lot. The computer wasnt doing anything.

[wolfen69]

i just tried windows 7 in virtualbox, and it's really not much different than vista, except that it seems to run a little faster. linux will continue to grow like it always has. i'm not worried.

[NintendoTogepi]

I don't mean us - obviously we'll keep using Linux, but in general. Linux has been gaining market share fairly rapidly thanks to the suckiness of Vista and the netbook market. 7 is supposedly considerably better and runs very well on netbooks.

I think, by this time next year Linux will be back to extreme niche-ness, with no companies selling it on computers anymore.

However, I do hope 7 is good, as even though I'm a Linux user, I also use Windows so that I may play PC games, and I would love a good version of Windows.

[blastus]

I think, by this time next year Linux will be back to extreme niche-ness, with no companies selling it on computers anymore.

I don't think so. Successful conversions to Linux are almost always one way. There's so much stuff now that I depend on Linux for that it would be difficult or impossible for me to switch back to Windows things like...

- full volume encryption (on Vista I could never get BitLocker to work and TrueCrypt, while I have used it is not the same as dm-crypt)
- USB key (or any type of storage) encryption
- DVD ISO creation (mkisofs) and playing ISO files directly (xine)
- multiple workspaces (workspace switcher)
- multiple file systems (ext3, xfs etc..)
- nice mount points (no more confusing drive letters)
- /dev/urandom (for randomly writing over data)
- the ability to drop to a terminal if the GUI becomes unstable (i.e. video card driver) and have full functionality like an INTERNET CONNECTION, NFS etc...
- a System Monitor that shows you what your network performance is measured in in bytes/s unlike Task Manager in Windows XP
- having a repository that you can use to install ANYTHING you want easily without having to download and run .exe files from all over the Internet
- the ability NOT to run as an Administrator without having all kinds of issues with stupidly designed software
- switching between multiple Java JRE/JDK versions seamlessly
- far better 64bit support than Windows has
- far better community support

Intrepid Ibex is an incredible operating system. I had the chance to show off Intrepid to a coworker at work one day and having never seen a Linux system before said "I don't know how Microsoft can compete with this."

[jimi_hendrix]

since i spend most of my time on windows because i do schoolwork on it and i havnt setup a printer in ubuntu yet i tried the windows7 beta and love it for non programming...but programming and speed still goes to linux (speed is getting to be a closer race...)

and i love the windows7 GUI

[azurehi]

I would Stop using windoze if:

1. Yahoo messenger were available...or Pidgin (or any other IM program would allow this) could do audio and video.

2. The clarity of the type were as good as in XP - I Always notice a huge difference when I return to XP from Ubuntu or other linux/bsd distros.

[gymophett]

No, I thought Vista looked like it might be nice too, well.. It sucked.
Anyway, nope, Linux isn't going anywhere.
I'll always use Ubuntu, so I could care less about anyone else.

[3rdalbum]

There will be a lot of people who will hate Windows 7, believe me on that.

[JackieChan]

Unless Windows 7 is free, I don't think anything is really going to change.

[Cody the Linux Guru]

Unless Windows 7 is free, I don't think anything is really going to change.

lol that's for sure

[Simian Man]

I could care less about Windows 7, but not without the help of powerful drugs.

[gymophett]

Only if Windows7 home edition would be available for free, then I would use it.

Ehk.
Seriously? If Windows was free I definitely would not be using it. I like Ubuntu, Windows just... blows.

[Hexifford]

There are still going to be those gramas and grampas and mommas and pappas that are going to buy Windows 7 because it's new and because it's Windows, and newer is supposed to be better. And because they don't know Linux exists because Windows already does everything they need to do on a computer.

[yogo]

A week ago I wrote an entry on this very topic.

http://wheretruthlies.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/windows-7-i-am-still-a-geek/

Her are some problems that Windows 7 has, mainly issues with Skype, BSOD and crashing etc.

So you may ask, what’s not to like? Well there are a few things that are quite easy to replicate. That dreaded BSOD (Blue Screen of Death) still rears it’s ugly head from time to time, actually quite often. You would think by now Windows could at least come up with some nice eye candy to replace that ugly BSOD. Secondly CRTL+ALT+DELETE no longer works, 3 out of four times pressing CRTL+ALT+DELETE will do absolutely nothing. Repeating this action does nothing as well. Your computer will freeze up and nothing works but to power it off. For those of you Skype users, Windows 7 does not like Skype too well yet. Skype will apparently work with sound and my microphone from tests, I have not tried to actually use them, however when testing my video aspect of Skype, my computer completely freezes up and becomes useless. This is when pressing CRTL+ALT+DELETE do nothing and I have to a power shutdown. Apparently I am not the only one who has issues with Skype, here are a number of users trying to find a workaround.

[Sneaky07]

When you have the power of freedom and choice...

That's pretty much the just of it. :D

[kidux]

I don't think so. The Linux user base is growing all the time, and users already on Linux aren't going to jump ship for a closed source, proprietary OS. Odds are, it'll be an improved version of Vista and be just as much of a resource strain.

[yse]

Windows 7 -> DirectX 11 , that kills linux for me.

[WatchingThePain]

Well it's Windows that should be afraid of Linux, not vice versa.
Linux comes from Unix which has been around long before windows.
Also I'd much rather have a Linux server than a Microsoft one.
It seems to me from reading these forums that many people just hang on to Windows for gaming at the moment. Given some time that will change I imagine.

....Anyway the Winblows (Bohemian Rhapsody).

[rakan_dr]

no

the people that use linux use it for a reason and wont care

</thread>

+1, +1, +1, +1, +1, +1, +1, +1, +1, +1, +1, +1!

;)

[cocopuffz]

All 3 of my main machines run Ubuntu as the main OS & are dual booting some form of windows either for Gaming or Audio Production apps.

I'm not opposed to windows per se, as it's not my main OS. It's just a tool I use. I'll probably get windows 7 once I know all of my production software and hardware is supported by it. Until then, it just doesn't really appeal to me. It's just a little better than XP and Vista while Ubuntu just feels light years ahead of the game for me.

Windows 7 isn't a Linux killer. Linux is still free and still rocks as as Desktop OS IMO. It runs sooo smooth on a mahine that chugs along in XP & that's with compiz effects on. Why would I pay for win7 when I already have a solution for free?

Plus.. what is there to kill? Linux will always be around as long as the community supports it. People who use Linux at this point aren't going to be swayed by a new, dressed up version of something they've rejected for so long.

[insineratehymn]

Anyone worried about this? Windows 7 actually looks like it might be decent. It'll dominate the netbook market and there will be a massive marketing push.

What do you think?
Who said Windows 7 is going to be good? I heard its going to be a regurgitated version of Vista.

I gotta be careful what I say here... I got in trouble last time I got started on Microsoft.

[hello_kitty]

All 3 of my main machines run Ubuntu as the main OS & are dual booting some form of windows either for Gaming or Audio Production apps.

I'm not opposed to windows per se, as it's not my main OS. It's just a tool I use. I'll probably get windows 7 once I know all of my production software and hardware is supported by it. Until then, it just doesn't really appeal to me. It's just a little better than XP and Vista while Ubuntu just feels light years ahead of the game for me.

Windows 7 isn't a Linux killer. Linux is still free and still rocks as as Desktop OS IMO. It runs sooo smooth on a mahine that chugs along in XP & that's with compiz effects on. Why would I pay for win7 when I already have a solution for free?

Plus.. what is there to kill? Linux will always be around as long as the community supports it. People who use Linux at this point aren't going to be swayed by a new, dressed up version of something they've rejected for so long.

Well said, my friend!

[Giant Speck]

Who said Windows 7 is going to be good? I heard its going to be a regurgitated version of Vista.

See, that's what happens when you listen to other people's experiences. Some will tell you that a product is the best thing since sliced bread, and others will tell you that it is the most God-awful product to ever curse the face of the planet.

The only way to be sure who is telling the truth is to try it out for yourself and make your own opinion. Because opinions based on other opinions aren't really opinions, are they?

DISCLAIMER: I am not telling anyone to install Windows 7. I installed it and I like it. However, my user experience may not be shared by other users, just like with any other product or software.

[insineratehymn]

See, that's what happens when you listen to other people's experiences. Some will tell you that a product is the best thing since sliced bread, and others will tell you that it is the most God-awful product to ever curse the face of the planet.

The only way to be sure who is telling the truth is to try it out for yourself and make your own opinion. Because opinions based on other opinions aren't really opinions, are they?

DISCLAIMER: I am not telling anyone to install Windows 7. I installed it and I like it. However, my user experience may not be shared by other users, just like with any other product or software.
Im a southerner.

I base my opinions on myth, legend, and gumption; never fact.

[konqueror7]

i think not, in a sense, its a new windows release, but then there are still virus writers waiting for a new platform to practice...also, when all those rumors about vista when it was in the early stages, people are expecting it to be good, but then see what happened...windows 7 has still to prove that it could really dominate the netbook market...

[geoken]

I don't think so. Successful conversions to Linux are almost always one way. There's so much stuff now that I depend on Linux for that it would be difficult or impossible for me to switch back to Windows things like...

- full volume encryption (on Vista I could never get BitLocker to work and TrueCrypt, while I have used it is not the same as dm-crypt)
- USB key (or any type of storage) encryption
- DVD ISO creation (mkisofs) and playing ISO files directly (xine)
- multiple workspaces (workspace switcher)
- multiple file systems (ext3, xfs etc..)
- nice mount points (no more confusing drive letters)
- /dev/urandom (for randomly writing over data)
- the ability to drop to a terminal if the GUI becomes unstable (i.e. video card driver) and have full functionality like an INTERNET CONNECTION, NFS etc...
- a System Monitor that shows you what your network performance is measured in in bytes/s unlike Task Manager in Windows XP
- having a repository that you can use to install ANYTHING you want easily without having to download and run .exe files from all over the Internet
- the ability NOT to run as an Administrator without having all kinds of issues with stupidly designed software
- switching between multiple Java JRE/JDK versions seamlessly
- far better 64bit support than Windows has
- far better community support

Intrepid Ibex is an incredible operating system. I had the chance to show off Intrepid to a coworker at work one day and having never seen a Linux system before said "I don't know how Microsoft can compete with this."

Your post is a good example of something I see a lot on here. Windows is so easy to use that most people never *have* to learn to do all the advanced stuff. Then they come over to Linux where they get instructed to do some action via the CLI (because it's easier/faster) at which point they're turned on to the power of the CLI. They then assume Windows can't do any of that stuff even though they never tried.

For example, Windows can not only drop into a fail safe GUI version of itself (Safe Mode) but it can also drop into a CLI.

Windows can also use a folder as a mount point, in the disc management dialog you simply click the folder radio button instead of drive letter then you browse your system for a folder that you want to use as the mount point.

As for 64bit support, there are a lot of people who run 64bit versions of Vista that don't run 64bit versions of Ubuntu because it was initially a lot harder to run a mixed 64/32 bit system in Linux. In windows you never had to know anything, it simply handled all the differences itself. I remember backing off from Ubuntu 64 a few years back because I was scared off by all the chroot stuff I was reading about. When Adobe released Flash 10 64bit for Linux first they basically said they were doing it because 32bit emulation on Linux was no where near as seamless and effortless as it was on Windows and OS X.

Your task manager is yet another example of how you never used the advanced features of Window's and therefore think they don't exist. Have you ever tried clicking the 'select columns' option in task manager? I'm sure you haven't since you think it doesn't have the ability to show bytes sent/bytes received.

Your DVD iso arguments seem weird. The two apps you listed are no more a part of the OS than imgBurn and VLC (the apps I use for accomplishing the same tasks on Vista) are a part of Windows.

[kidux]

Windows 7 -> DirectX 11 , that kills linux for me.
Please don't take this the wrong way, because I don't mean to offend, but this kind of attitude is what's wrong with us. By accepting this, we are telling the developers it's ok to discriminate against us, which it is not. I know all about working within the limitations of the system, but that system will never change unless we change it.

[pmlxuser]

Well what ever people say, For me its BYE BYE Windows for the next 10 years of course, may be after that i will decide to give it another try or unless linux becomes closed source or free iso stop popping up here and there ;)

[Flag]

I'm using Ubuntu for an extended period now as main OS. Sadly enough there still is a need to run, in my case XP, in virtual box, it's all driver related and I'm aware of the arguments re. drivers not made available for Linux, but no way I'm buying a new printer or scanner which might or might not work in Linux, like e.g a simple photo printer ( Canon ) which used to work in one distro and then didn't in the next.
Not to mention the problems lots of people have ( had ) with Skype and PA.
So in short : I don't really care about W7, but will keep the option to run whatever WS OS just to make sure I can use whatever I want to use.
I' sure that W7 will have it's impact worldwide and also I'm sure that when or if ever it proves itself to be easy to handle a lot of people will choose for it.
And let's be honest there are lots of WS CDs around which are as free as a Linux CD, same goes for software.

[Kopachris]

Anyone worried about this? Windows 7 actually looks like it might be decent. It'll dominate the netbook market and there will be a massive marketing push.

What do you think?
I don't see how anyone could seriously think it'll dominate the netbook market. Sure Starter Edition will cost less than the others (they're going to push Home Basic for developing countries), but it'll be limited to 3 open applications at a time (excluding antivirus). Let's see, we need chat, internet, text editor, and email -- oh wait, that's four!

[bakedbeans4life]

Please don't take this the wrong way, because I don't mean to offend, but this kind of attitude is what's wrong with us. By accepting this, we are telling the developers it's ok to discriminate against us, which it is not. I know all about working within the limitations of the system, but that system will never change unless we change it.

I think you'll find <snip> is a Microsoft boy, through and through. The only time he will give Linux any plaudits is when Microsoft Linux becomes available.

As to the topic at hand, what is there to kill? An amorphous alien entity with tentacles and a taste for human flesh is what Microsoft would have the public believe what Linux represents. And, lets face it, Linux has come along way without mass public or political support relative to the inertia and kickbacks offered by Microsoft.

[Crafty Kisses]

Windows 7 the Linux killer? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

[forrestcupp]

Every time a new version of Windows is about to come out, it always puts me in the mood to totally ditch Windows and use Linux exclusively. I can't see myself spending a couple of C's for an OS upgrade.

[jordilin]

Every time a new version of Windows is about to come out, it always puts me in the mood to totally ditch Windows and use Linux exclusively. I can't see myself spending a couple of C's for an OS upgrade.

I have the same feeling with MACOS. Many people at work use MACOS, and the other day I tried to compile a program for MAC, and I happened to discover that Leopard is a 32 bit operating system. I've never laughed so much as many of them thought they had 64 bit OS.

[eschatologicalhumor]

Anyone worried about this? Windows 7 actually looks like it might be decent. It'll dominate the netbook market and there will be a massive marketing push.

What do you think?

All I have to say is: BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

It'll dominate the netbook market until people realize that Ubuntu is prettier, more stable, cheaper (free'er), and will cook them dinner and rub their feet. Then MS will have to release an update or DRM lock you into some stupid future version of Aero to make it prettier, but the linux folk won't care and Windows will die a lonely cold death behind a dumpster next to Courtney Love-Kobain.

No, seriously, in all honesty, Ubuntu is picking up some serious speed, and GNU/Linux in general. My sister, on a whim, wiped her Windows computer and installed DreamLinux. She hasn't had a single complaint. Neither has my dad, and THAT is amazing because he's about as computer literate as a zygote. That means that grampy CAN pick linux up with no adoption or learning curve! Holy crap, whooda thunk it?

I wait eagerly, and every morning I scour the tech news hungrily for a story about MS folding. The sooner MS dies, the sooner open source can become standard and corporate capitalism won't have their skanky d*cks submerged in every faction of consumer spending.

Sorry, lots of coffee this morning....

[bruno9779]

I am stuck with windoze every day at work, so I am continuously reminded on how bad it is.

There is no way i would sell my PC's soul to the devil just for some eye-candy.

):P bye bye MS

[tsger]

I personally believe there is room for both, and will continue to be. I am thankful that I can run both OSes, depending on the situation. Due to Linux' open nature, and the fact that there are so many independent developers, I don't think it will ever be "killed." Whether or not it will end up being the number one OS is another question, and I, for one, do not worry if it stays at the number three spot. I still love it and will use it happily alongside Windows and maybe some day alongside OSX as well.

[Swagman]

Netbooks are set to become a dying category.
Manufacturers have moved from the original idea and made them bigger and more expensive to the point where you might as well buy a laptop and have all the features anyway.

Maybe that was the plan all along just to get Microsoft to lower the price of its O/s ?

[iponeverything]

Anyone worried about this? Windows 7 actually looks like it might be decent. It'll dominate the netbook market and there will be a massive marketing push.

What do you think?

By decent you mean that people won't have to worry about AV or spy-ware anymore? Decent in that MS going to stop with DRM restrictions deciding what you can do with own created content? Decent in that you won't be forced to upgrade if you want much needed security updates, because because product has reached its end of life? Good for MS. They employ a lot people who have families to support, but as far as them having any real impact on Linux -- I don't think that is going to happen -- other that obvious impact that competition has on the overall quality of software in general.

[pbpersson]

Will this new version of Windows FINALLY have multiple desktops which people have been waiting for Microsoft to finally add for years?

Will you be able to install all your software from ONE add/remove programs screen regardless of what company produced the software?

Will Windows automatically download and install upgrades for ALL the software you have installed on your machine?

Will anti-virus software and anti-spyware software FINALLY be built into the OS since it is such a requirement of using Windows?

Will you actually be able to MODIFY the look and feel of the OS which is not really possible in XP and Vista?

Will you be able to install Windows and download the latest upgrades without rebooting your computer 20 times?

If all these things are included in Windows 7 then I will be impressed....but I still believe that Ubuntu is moving ahead faster than Windows....if Windows 7 had all these things then PERHAPS they could compete with Ubuntu.....nah, not really. :)

[LowSky]

Will this new version of Windows FINALLY have multiple desktops which people have been waiting for Microsoft to finally add for years?

Will you be able to install all your software from ONE add/remove programs screen regardless of what company produced the software?

Will Windows automatically download and install upgrades for ALL the software you have installed on your machine?

Will anti-virus software and anti-spyware software FINALLY be built into the OS since it is such a requirement of using Windows? No

Will you actually be able to MODIFY the look and feel of the OS which is not really possible in XP and Vista? Yes it is more customizable

Will you be able to install Windows and download the latest upgrades without rebooting your computer 20 times? Yes, this was "fixed" in Vista.

If all these things are included in Windows 7 then I will be impressed....but I still believe that Ubuntu is moving ahead faster than Windows....if Windows 7 had all these things then PERHAPS they could compete with Ubuntu.....nah, not really. :)


Windows is trying to go back to their 'new' Release every three years model, that it had from Windows 95 to XP.

Personally Windows is still leaps and bounds better than Ubuntu or linux in general in many ways.
1. OEM support
2. Dirver Support
3. Knowlegable Users
4. Much larger software availibility
5. Better Marketing

Linux companies spend too much on trying to support the Server market, and leave the desktop to Microsoft as the users need to be compatable with nearly everyone, Using Desktop Linux becomes harder.

Until Microsoft builds MS office for Linux, Linux will not get to grow as much as Linux Zealots might wish. Openoffice is great but it is not the corporate standard. And Standards are what are important.

[Kopachris]

Personally Windows is still leaps and bounds better than Ubuntu or linux in general in many ways.
1. OEM support
2. Dirver Support
3. Knowlegable Users
4. Much larger software availibility
5. Better Marketing

Linux companies spend too much on trying to support the Server market, and leave the desktop to Microsoft as the users need to be compatable with nearly everyone, Using Desktop Linux becomes harder.

Until Microsoft builds MS office for Linux, Linux will not get to grow as much as Linux Zealots might wish. Openoffice is great but it is not the corporate standard. And Standards are what are important.
1. OEM support - if you try to install OEM Windows on a computer other than the one it came with, you could be screwed. You can install just about any Linux on just about any computer, for free. All OEM really does is allow manufacturers to put their stupid adware and trialware in there that nobody likes.
2. Driver support - this is a hardware manufacturer problem. Hardware manufacturers don't see Linux as being big enough to support. Nonetheless, most installations of Linux work better out of the box than most Windows installations.
3. Knowledgeable users - You're talking about paid tech support, right? :lolflag: If not, then it's even funnier!
4. Much larger software availability - Yeah, but what percent of that is crapware or malware? In Linux, most people who want to develop something join the same team, so there may be less choice, but there's a larger percentage of good choices.
5. Better marketing - Marketing? A couple decent commercials ought to do the trick. I'll put it on my to-do list. Maybe we can do it like OSS and all pitch in for the spot on the air.

As for building MS Office for Linux, they won't and don't need to. "Corporate standards" are not based on software, like most think. It is (or should be) based on format. OOo can read and write MS Office files, but MS Office can't read or write open formats (like odf). OOo is similar enough to MS Office in function and appearance that even my mom can use it without a problem.

There are a lot of reasons why Linux won't grow very large or fast. The only legitimate one, however, is marketing. And that's only because we're too preoccupied making software we like. Note the "we". Just about all OSS projects stemmed from a developer wanting to change something in an existing program. To get it how he wanted it. Same with Linux. The Linux Kernel originally started based on what people did and didn't like in Minix. It's grown, and the focus is still on current users. That and marketing (the two are so related they're practically the same) are the only legitimate reasons for Linux not to grow.

[Skripka]

It's grown, and the focus is still on current users. That and marketing (the two are so related they're practically the same) are the only legitimate reasons for Linux not to grow.


Nope.


Most users barely know how to do more than turn on their computer, type a Word doc, and surf Facebook.

Installing, using, and troubleshooting linux assumes an ability with computers--or at least a desire to learn more about computers-that FAR surpasses most computer users.

Most people want another appliance. Not something that they need to learn more about.

[Solicitous]

Anyone worried about this? Windows 7 actually looks like it might be decent. It'll dominate the netbook market and there will be a massive marketing push.

What do you think?

It might dominate in terms of numbers available at stores to buy compared to Linux-based netbooks, but if MS go ahead with restricting the OS to run no more than 3 applications at once, it'll be short lived. People will buy them and install XP or Linux. So in terms of actual sales compared to Linux, yes it will dominate, but in terms of actual numbers using Windows 7 over Linux (after purchase) ummm, probably be fairly similar me thinks.

[stchman]

No. My guess that the average Linux user will not even care about Windows 7.

From what I have read is that M$ is taking security more serious now. It only took them 14 years.

[xir_]

I think most people wont bother to upgrade.

Useing my father as an example, he has no interest in any of the features in windows 7. He has paid for his pc and really doesn't see why he should pay for it again. He's happy with xp, if he was given windows 7 for free he would complain because he would have to figure out all the buttons have moved too.

Windows 7 will make a small number of people upgrade now, most will only take it when they buy a new pc from a vendor. Some people will want it because its new, but most wont/cant spend $200 dollars on software.

I really don't care if linux defeats Microsoft, what bothers me is the bully tactics that this particular monopoly seems to use.

I will never go back to windows, other than my dirty once a month gaming fix.

[Twitch6000]

I think most people wont bother to upgrade.

Useing my father as an example, he has no interest in any of the features in windows 7. He has paid for his pc and really doesn't see why he should pay for it again. He's happy with xp, if he was given windows 7 for free he would complain because he would have to figure out all the buttons have moved too.

Windows 7 will make a small number of people upgrade now, most will only take it when they buy a new pc from a vendor. Some people will want it because its new, but most wont/cant spend $200 dollars on software.

I really don't care if linux defeats Microsoft, what bothers me is the bully tactics that this particular monopoly seems to use.

I will never go back to windows, other than my dirty once a month gaming fix.

I agree and that is why I think when microsoft ****** up their three year release thing with vista... They just messed up...

Now people are finally getting use to vista or never letting go of xp cause it just works.

Then they are looking at other oses like Linux,BSD,Solaris,and Mac.


So chances of them upgrading from Xp is very little.

Now some might upgrade from vista if service pack 2 hasn't fixed their issues.

[SonicSteve]

I was in a computer store a few weeks back and one of the store clerks said something to the effect of "so windows 7 is supposed to be a Linux killer".

To which I asked "and why is that?"

Linux cannot be "Killed" man other members here have already said it perfectly. The reasons are numerous, Linux will not die. It doesn't matter how good windows 7 is, I won't be abandoning Linux and it wont' be disappearing beneath my feet.

[Giant Speck]

This discussion is so three months ago.

[SonicSteve]

This discussion is so three months ago.


Perhaps, but people will talk about until the reality sets in that Windows 7 has not killed Linux. I would say that most of the belief stems from a misunderstanding of why many people use Linux. The reasons are many, and most of the reasons will not be quenched by windows 7.

[sydbat]

Nope.


Most users barely know how to do more than turn on their computer, type a Word doc, and surf Facebook.

Installing, using, and troubleshooting linux assumes an ability with computers--or at least a desire to learn more about computers-that FAR surpasses most computer users.

Most people want another appliance. Not something that they need to learn more about.You hit it directly on the head! So hard, in fact, that it has caused a concussion.

Only people in IT or others who actually know things about computers seem to get this. And we are in the minority.

Joe Average really does not care...if the computer turns on and he can check his email or favourite social engineering site or write a letter or surf for p0rn, he is satisfied.

Same goes for Jane Average! Except the p0rn thingy...maybe...

[SomeGuyDude]

Am I the only one who thinks Win7 is really a good release?

I put it on my older non-Vista-capable notebook and it runs snappy as can be. Faster than Vista did on my current lappy and certainly faster than XP was on the old one. It looks pretty slick and bootup time is a lot faster than older Windows releases.

If it wasn't for all the little things I love on Linux (cost, customization, etc), I'd really be tempted to switch over just for the guaranteed compatibility.

[SonicSteve]

Am I the only one who thinks Win7 is really a good release?

I put it on my older non-Vista-capable notebook and it runs snappy as can be. Faster than Vista did on my current lappy and certainly faster than XP was on the old one. It looks pretty slick and bootup time is a lot faster than older Windows releases.

If it wasn't for all the little things I love on Linux (cost, customization, etc), I'd really be tempted to switch over just for the guaranteed compatibility.

I wouldn't be so confident about the compatibility thing. If the history holds true new drivers will be needed for Windows 7 and that will take some time, likely 12-18months. I doubt vista drivers will work in Windows 7.

[SomeGuyDude]

I wouldn't be so confident about the compatibility thing. If the history holds true new drivers will be needed for Windows 7 and that will take some time, likely 12-18months. I doubt vista drivers will work in Windows 7.

Like I said, the thing works pretty flawlessly on a machine that was too old to even install Vista, so color me impressed. Sure I'm sure a lot is missing but... we're still beta stage. I think MS has learned a LOT from the Vista disaster.

I mean software compatibility, mainly, though. I don't game a lot or anything, but there is a part of me that wishes I didn't have to keep saying "sorry I can't use that, I have Linux." One big example being my now useless Audible account.

[GepettoBR]

Most people start off their computer lives in windows. That means that Linux users, for the msot part, switched over because they were unhappy with something in Windows.

If you broke up with a girl, found a better girlfriend and suddenly the old one came knocking on your door saying that she's fixed all her problems, would you switch back so easily?

Of course, I'm not implying that we should fall in love with an operating system, but it's the same thing in that you'd need to dislike something about Linux to switch back.

If Windows 7 is good, it'll surely decrease the volume of people switching from Windows to other OSes, but I seriously doubt that it'll make anyone switch back, be it from BSD, GNU/Linux, OS X, Solaris or whatever else.

[tommyhot]

I think MS has learned a LOT from the Vista disaster.

What disaster? I use vista for a year and it haven't crashed since. It's much faster than XP and *buntu as well, even debian i was using till last week (i switched back to *buntu after 2 years because of debian broken repositories every week). And powermanagement is just great. My battery lasts 2 hours in vista comparing to 1.15 hours in linux (no matter what distribution and laptop-mode and other "tweaks" used). Sound quality in linux is also not that good.

But of course there are few things I don't like about windows, so that's the reason I'm still sticking with linux. One of them is lack of powerful text editor. Kate is just "must have" application, that every programmer has to use. Another thing is vista is not that eye candy and I miss virtual desktops, even though I like Aero. To be honest, compiz fusion is the best window manager ever.

Windows 7: I used it for a while and the hardware requirements are sick. You can compare them to win XP requirements. That's a big step forwrad! There is compatibility with vista drivers, software that couldn't run on vista runs flawlessly on win 7 and so one. This will definitely put other systems out of market.

But to not sound that mean, I gotta say that *buntu is one of the best distribution. 6 steps installation, 20 minutes and system was up and running. Then apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade, allowing ATI proprietary driver and every single piece of hardware work without any problem (even my web camera, that I had to compile driver for on debian).

I think KDE 4.2 is also something that brings more users to the linux world. It looks amazing and it has so many great features over KDE 3. For 8 years I use linux it has made a big progress (only gnome is still the same with no visible progress), but there is still a lot work to do, so to answer the question - yes windows is in my opinion going to be linux killer if things don't move faster here.

[Twitch6000]

What disaster? I use vista for a year and it haven't crashed since. It's much faster than XP and *buntu as well, even debian i was using till last week (i switched back to *buntu after 2 years because of debian broken repositories every week). And powermanagement is just great. My battery lasts 2 hours in vista comparing to 1.15 hours in linux (no matter what distribution and laptop-mode and other "tweaks" used). Sound quality in linux is also not that good.

But of course there are few things I don't like about windows, so that's the reason I'm still sticking with linux. One of them is lack of powerful text editor. Kate is just "must have" application, that every programmer has to use. Another thing is vista is not that eye candy and I miss virtual desktops, even though I like Aero. To be honest, compiz fusion is the best window manager ever.

Windows 7: I used it for a while and the hardware requirements are sick. You can compare them to win XP requirements. That's a big step forwrad! There is compatibility with vista drivers, software that couldn't run on vista runs flawlessly on win 7 and so one. This will definitely put other systems out of market.

But to not sound that mean, I gotta say that *buntu is one of the best distribution. 6 steps installation, 20 minutes and system was up and running. Then apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade, allowing ATI proprietary driver and every single piece of hardware work without any problem (even my web camera, that I had to compile driver for on debian).

I think KDE 4.2 is also something that brings more users to the linux world. It looks amazing and it has so many great features over KDE 3. For 8 years I use linux it has made a big progress (only gnome is still the same with no visible progress), but there is still a lot work to do, so to answer the question - yes windows is in my opinion going to be linux killer if things don't move faster here.

You know i was not really giving a care what you were saying until one point as everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

After I seen you say this though -

Windows 7: I used it for a while and the hardware requirements are sick. You can compare them to win XP requirements.

I just quit reading ...


Reason being because that is for one fud. Second I have proof.

Right on the Microsoft site for testing Windows 7 it shows the specs for windows 7.

It is more comparable to vista,not xp....


Here are the specs of windows 7 and source

Processor speed: 1 GHz (either 32-bit or 64-bit)

Memory (RAM): 1 GB

Graphics card: DirectX 9.0 capable

Graphics memory: 128 MB (for Windows Aero)

HDD free space: 16 GB

Other drives: DVD-ROM

Audio: Audio output

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7#Hardware_requirements

AND

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/beta-installation-instructions.aspx

Scroll down on that link and it gives the specs.



Now as you can see it is more comparable to vista then to XP :).

[GepettoBR]

Am I the only one who thinks Win7 is really a good release?

I put it on my older non-Vista-capable notebook and it runs snappy as can be. Faster than Vista did on my current lappy and certainly faster than XP was on the old one. It looks pretty slick and bootup time is a lot faster than older Windows releases.

If it wasn't for all the little things I love on Linux (cost, customization, etc), I'd really be tempted to switch over just for the guaranteed compatibility.

Honestly, I'm very happy with my Ubuntu/XP dual-boot (and Arch on another hard drive in case the primary crashes). If I used Vista, I'd easily see myself upgrading to Windows 7, but the way things are now I'll keep XP until Microsoft's bully tactics make everything in the market incompatible with it, or until I can completely ditch Windows for an open sourced solution, whichever comes first.

I think KDE 4.2 is also something that brings more users to the linux world. It looks amazing and it has so many great features over KDE 3. For 8 years I use linux it has made a big progress (only gnome is still the same with no visible progress), but there is still a lot work to do, so to answer the question - yes windows is in my opinion going to be linux killer if things don't move faster here.

I'm quite happy using GNOME, but I'm always eager to test the latest KDE build. KDE4 is really impressive, albeit a little too Windows-like, but it's still too buggy (in my own experience). When it becomes stable, It's likely that I'll jump over from GNOME. GNOME's development is too rigid. I think they'll eventually fall behind on one new technology or another and fall under. I hop not, but that's how I see it playing out if they continue in their current direction.

[betrunkenaffe]

Quote:
Will you be able to install Windows and download the latest upgrades without rebooting your computer 20 times?
Yes, this was "fixed" in Vista.

Regarding this quote: I installed Vista on this machine, it rebooted 3 times in install. Once when I installed gfx card drivers and then 3 additional seperate boots when upgrading. I installed Fedora Core 10 (currently on it) right after, it rebooted once to get into the OS itself (I was running in LiveCD until I opted to reboot myself, I liked that)

[tommyhot]

You know i was not really giving a care what you were saying until one point as everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

After I seen you say this though -



I just quit reading ...


Reason being because that is for one fud. Second I have proof.

Right on the Microsoft site for testing Windows 7 it shows the specs for windows 7.

It is more comparable to vista,not xp....


Here are the specs of windows 7 and source

Processor speed: 1 GHz (either 32-bit or 64-bit)

Memory (RAM): 1 GB

Graphics card: DirectX 9.0 capable

Graphics memory: 128 MB (for Windows Aero)

HDD free space: 16 GB

Other drives: DVD-ROM

Audio: Audio output

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7#Hardware_requirements

AND

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/beta-installation-instructions.aspx

Scroll down on that link and it gives the specs.



Now as you can see it is more comparable to vista then to XP :).

I don't really care what microsoft says. I've used windows 7 for a while and it runs flawlessly on 1GHz laptop with 1GB ram which actualy are minimum requirements.

If you look to XP minimum requirements (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sysreqs/pro.mspx) it says:

PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended

128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)

But in fact I could NEVER run XP on such machine (actually slightly better - 500MHz CPU and 256MB RAM). I had to bought 800 MHz CPU and 512 RAM machine to be able to run XP and I gotta tell you it wasn't running flawlessly at all!

If you look to vista (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/get/system-requirements.aspx) it says:

1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor

1 GB of system memory

But there is NO chance you can run vista with aero on such machine. You need 2 core processor and +-800MB RAM only for vista itself not for running other applications. It will consume much more memory..

That's what I meant about the requirements comparing to XP. The ones used with XP and Vista are not true at all. Try Windows 7 and you'll see that you can really run it without any problems on machine with the minimum hardware requirements.

I'm quite happy using GNOME, but I'm always eager to test the latest KDE build. KDE4 is really impressive, albeit a little too Windows-like, but it's still too buggy (in my own experience). When it becomes stable, It's likely that I'll jump over from GNOME. GNOME's development is too rigid. I think they'll eventually fall behind on one new technology or another and fall under. I hop not, but that's how I see it playing out if they continue in their current direction.

KDE 4 is quite buggy for me only here on kubuntu, but I guess it's only because I'm using jaunty beta. Debian KDE 4 wasn't buggy at all, or at least I haven't notice it.

[Twitch6000]

I don't really care what microsoft says. I've used windows 7 for a while and it runs flawlessly on 1GHz laptop with 1GB ram which actualy are minimum requirements.

If you look to XP minimum requirements (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sysreqs/pro.mspx) it says:

PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended

128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)

But in fact I could NEVER run XP on such machine (actually slightly better - 500MHz CPU and 256MB RAM). I had to bought 800 MHz CPU and 512 RAM machine to be able to run XP and I gotta tell you it wasn't running flawlessly at all!

If you look to vista (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/get/system-requirements.aspx) it says:

1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor

1 GB of system memory

But there is NO chance you can run vista with aero on such machine. You need 2 core processor and +-800MB RAM only for vista itself not for running other applications. It will consume much more memory..

That's what I meant about the requirements comparing to XP. The ones used with XP and Vista are not true at all. Try Windows 7 and you'll see that you can really run it without any problems on machine with the minimum hardware requirements.

Well about the vista with aero thing I myself wouldn't know.

However the min specs of xp... I myself have ran a machine with xp with lower specs(meaning lower then the min specs) then it needs...

With tweaks ofcourse :).

Vista ofcourse was a flop so it wouldn't surprise me if the specs are false.

[GepettoBR]

Well, I guess it's an improvement that they're not lying through their teeth on hardware specs...

[ade234uk]

I cant ever see myself ever using a M$ product @ home again. I have been using Ubuntu for 6 months now. Windows 7 may be great, it may be beautiful but who cares. Windows teaches me nothing, on the other hand Ubuntu has taught me how an operating system should really work.

[tommyhot]

Well about the vista with aero thing I myself wouldn't know.

However the min specs of xp... I myself have ran a machine with xp with lower specs(meaning lower then the min specs) then it needs...

With tweaks ofcourse :).

Vista ofcourse was a flop so it wouldn't surprise me if the specs are false.

Friend of mine has an older laptop which is slightly powerful than laptop with minimum requirements and he switched off aero completely, because he wasn't able to do anything.

Are you trying to tell me, that you could run tweaked XP on < 233MHz CPU and less than 128MB RAM? I could barely run Suse 9.0 with WindowMaker on such machine (one of my first attempts with linux) long time ago.

Quote:
Will you be able to install Windows and download the latest upgrades without rebooting your computer 20 times?
Yes, this was "fixed" in Vista.

Regarding this quote: I installed Vista on this machine, it rebooted 3 times in install. Once when I installed gfx card drivers and then 3 additional seperate boots when upgrading. I installed Fedora Core 10 (currently on it) right after, it rebooted once to get into the OS itself (I was running in LiveCD until I opted to reboot myself, I liked that)

I have OEM Vista so everything is up and running on first install inlcuding drivers and some toshiba applications. But when upgrading drivers or so, you'are not forced to restart immediately. What's wrong with unclicking "Restart now" button and continue using your computer? This is mostly problem only if installing antivirus and firewall, when it's better to restart it right after it's installed.

I cant ever see myself ever using a M$ product @ home again. I have been using Ubuntu for 6 months now. Windows 7 may be great, it may be beautiful but who cares. Windows teaches me nothing, on the other hand Ubuntu has taught me how an operating system should really work.

No offense but I personaly don't think ubuntu will teach you anything. These "windows like" distributions (*buntu, mandriva, fedora) where everything works out of box can't teach you much. You are not even forced to compile your kernel (I was, in debian because the distribution one didn't work for me), drivers or manualy setting things up. Almost everything is done within GUI and lot of ubuntu users will much likely never see a configuration file.

Surely, you have the possibility in ubuntu to teach yourself a new stuff, but you have to want. In other distributions you are just forced to learn a new things because there's not any other way to set your system up.

[GepettoBR]

I have OEM Vista so everything is up and running on first install inlcuding drivers and some toshiba applications. But when upgrading drivers or so, you'are not forced to restart immediately. What's wrong with unclicking "Restart now" button and continue using your computer? This is mostly problem only if installing antivirus and firewall, when it's better to restart it right after it's installed.

It's not a matter of having to reboot immediately, it's a matter of having to reboot at all.

With XP, for example, there were many times when Microsoft released two updates simultaneously, yet one depended on the other and this other required a reboot. Not only that, but if you clicked "Reboot later", the same prompt would pop up every ten minutes reminding you that you need a reboot.

I haven't used vista enough to know if the problem is still there and still as annoying.

[tommyhot]

It's not a matter of having to reboot immediately, it's a matter of having to reboot at all.

With XP, for example, there were many times when Microsoft released two updates simultaneously, yet one depended on the other and this other required a reboot. Not only that, but if you clicked "Reboot later", the same prompt would pop up every ten minutes reminding you that you need a reboot.

I haven't used vista enough to know if the problem is still there and still as annoying.

You have to reboot linux as well if you are e.g. upgrading kernel, libc6 and so one.

In vista you actually don't have to reboot after every windows update procedure (but most of the time you will). There is also 10 minutes reminder, but when it pops up, you can set it to 4 hours and after that to another 4 hours.

But yes, there is nothing as easy as apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade :)

[Afkpuz]

Funny story. For my roommate, linux was a windows savior, not a killer.


He was originally a windows xp user, but then it randomly crashed. I suggested installing ubuntu just to help him write his papers and check email. He ended up loving ubuntu and in the process of installing ubuntu, windows began to work again. So, linux was a windows savior.

[50words]

For me, yes and no. Windows 7 beta is pretty awesome on my ThinkPad. I am enjoying 95% of the features, and it is much faster than Ubuntu 8.04 or 8.10 on my computer. The few I am not enjoying seem like beta bugs that should be worked out by the time the main release comes out, or problems with third-party software that should get worked out once they are actually designing for Windows 7.

But it also depends how good 9.04 is. 8.10 sucked on my ThinkPad, but works great on the Dell desktop I use at work.

Right now, I am still using Ubuntu at work, but Windows 7 on my personal laptop. I will probably buy Windows 7 when it comes out, as long as the release lives up to the beta.

[netwarriorwy]

...Until Microsoft builds MS office for Linux, Linux will not get to grow as much as Linux Zealots might wish. Openoffice is great but it is not the corporate standard. And Standards are what are important.

:lolflag:I think you got a point there. These days I'm trying hard to deal with Open Office which I think is great, but when passing my texts to my friends they have to format them well in Word cause all the tables and tabs moves. So now I'm the official person who receives everything and put it together. When we have to print it in a store I have to pass my odt to pdf cause if I save it in doc the same problem comes. Most "mortal" people would feel more secure if they could use a better Open Office that doesn't have conflicts with MS Office.

[netwarriorwy]

:guitar:
Well guys here is what I think. Right now I'm taking a software projects class, its my last semester at university and almost everybody is a .net guy or if they aren't they won't take the risk to completely switch to ubuntu. I had both windows XP and ubuntu in my laptop, but now I only have Ubuntu and whenever I need XP L launch it on my VirtualBox. I think that is a fact that W7 won't kill us but maybe will penetrate in mortal peoples mind like the ones who are not related to tech at all and are used to use a PC just as a job tool to make some Office stuff or the surf the web.
I stand for Linux and I will always be, because of its principles. The reason why MS has more share market is because most old people has always used Windoze. And those old ones are everywhere. Linux has us!!! A huge community eager to improve it day by day no matter how big is the support somebody does..its a support. MS only has a bunch of developers who has the power to improve it, because to be honest...the MS users can't do much to make a better Windows version that reporting a bug.
I just love my Linux Ubuntu

[Giant Speck]

With XP, for example, there were many times when Microsoft released two updates simultaneously, yet one depended on the other and this other required a reboot. Not only that, but if you clicked "Reboot later", the same prompt would pop up every ten minutes reminding you that you need a reboot.

Windows Vista and Windows 7 allow you to postpone the reboot up to four hours. Why you'd want to postpone rebooting after an update, especially if it was a security update, is purely beyond me.

[betrunkenaffe]

I have OEM Vista so everything is up and running on first install inlcuding drivers and some toshiba applications. But when upgrading drivers or so, you'are not forced to restart immediately. What's wrong with unclicking "Restart now" button and continue using your computer? This is mostly problem only if installing antivirus and firewall, when it's better to restart it right after it's installed.

I didn't see a "restart now" button, I started the install and then my machine shut itself down without any warning at all.

[GepettoBR]

Windows Vista and Windows 7 allow you to postpone the reboot up to four hours. Why you'd want to postpone rebooting after an update, especially if it was a security update, is purely beyond me.

Perhaps you're in the middle of something and don't want to interrupt it, especially since windows boots up very slowly when it's the first boot after an update. four hours is certainly more than enough. Ten minutes isn't in many cases.

EDIT: And of course, we're talking about Desktop PCs here. With servers, the problem is much larger.

[Giant Speck]

Perhaps you're in the middle of something and don't want to interrupt it, especially since windows boots up very slowly when it's the first boot after an update. four hours is certainly more than enough. Ten minutes isn't in many cases.

EDIT: And of course, we're talking about Desktop PCs here. With servers, the problem is much larger.

Well, I meant I don't understand why someone would want to wait four hours to reboot. I can understand why someone would want to postpone reboot, but not for that long.

[tommyhot]

I didn't see a "restart now" button, I started the install and then my machine shut itself down without any warning at all.

It's most likely to be the application issue not the system one. At least I haven't deal with this issue in Vista yet.

Well, I meant I don't understand why someone would want to wait four hours to reboot. I can understand why someone would want to postpone reboot, but not for that long.

You can reboot it anytime you want, you don't have to wait 4 hours (also you can choose 1 hour instead of 4). It won't even reboot your machine after that time, it will just inform you that it needs to be rebooted.

[Twitch6000]

Friend of mine has an older laptop which is slightly powerful than laptop with minimum requirements and he switched off aero completely, because he wasn't able to do anything.

Are you trying to tell me, that you could run tweaked XP on < 233MHz CPU and less than 128MB RAM? I could barely run Suse 9.0 with WindowMaker on such machine (one of my first attempts with linux) long time ago.



I have OEM Vista so everything is up and running on first install inlcuding drivers and some toshiba applications. But when upgrading drivers or so, you'are not forced to restart immediately. What's wrong with unclicking "Restart now" button and continue using your computer? This is mostly problem only if installing antivirus and firewall, when it's better to restart it right after it's installed.



No offense but I personaly don't think ubuntu will teach you anything. These "windows like" distributions (*buntu, mandriva, fedora) where everything works out of box can't teach you much. You are not even forced to compile your kernel (I was, in debian because the distribution one didn't work for me), drivers or manualy setting things up. Almost everything is done within GUI and lot of ubuntu users will much likely never see a configuration file.

Surely, you have the possibility in ubuntu to teach yourself a new stuff, but you have to want. In other distributions you are just forced to learn a new things because there's not any other way to set your system up.


Friend of mine has an older laptop which is slightly powerful than laptop with minimum requirements and he switched off aero completely, because he wasn't able to do anything.

Are you trying to tell me, that you could run tweaked XP on < 233MHz CPU and less than 128MB RAM? I could barely run Suse 9.0 with WindowMaker on such machine (one of my first attempts with linux) long time ago

Yes that is exactly what i am saying.

Infact I believe the exact specs I had it on was or around -

190 cpu(or something like that) and 96 mb ram.

If you go on youtube and search for windows xp low specs, you will find alot more videos of xp running below the min specs..

I even found a video yesterday of VISTA running below 256mb ram... on a virtual machine.

[SomeGuyDude]

I'm pretty sure Windows 7 could have a feature that makes it print money and people on here would find a way to say it sucks.

[SonicSteve]

You can reboot it anytime you want, you don't have to wait 4 hours (also you can choose 1 hour instead of 4). It won't even reboot your machine after that time, it will just inform you that it needs to be rebooted.

This is a definite improvement. One of my biggest peeves in XP was that it would reboot automatically after 5-10 mins of some updates. If you had some process going and walked away, it's possible that after an automatic update it would reboot killing your process. To make it worse even if you clicked reboot later the same message would come back again and again and again until you did, or if you miss the message, too bad, REBOOT!

[GepettoBR]

I'm pretty sure Windows 7 could have a feature that makes it print money and people on here would find a way to say it sucks.

Yes, that's called being a fanboy. There's a lot of fanboys around here, but not more than on the official Microsoft forums.

I'd say the OS X fanboys are the worst though. "If you can't do it on OS X you probably don't need to do it anyways" is the scariest software slogan I've ever seen.

[CylnZ]

Windows 7 does not steal effects, or anything else, from Linux and OSX.

Beep Media Player is a fork of XMMS, does it mean it steals it's interface?

No. It draws inspiration from XMMS, just like Microsoft did from Linux, regarding the Windows 7 GUI.

What is it with people saying Windows stole this, Windows stole that - don't you feel proud Microsoft decided to code features which have been already present in Linux?

This is what Open Source is about. Freedom. The freedom to take ideas, and inspiration, from other projects, and not be viewed as a theif, or as a ripoff.

The freedom to continue and improve ideas.

Anybody who says Microsoft "stole" something from Linux, is a fanboy, in the bad sense of the word.

You can only say Microsoft stole something, if they saw a feature Linux already had, and claimed it to be their own original work, rather than saying they drew inspiration from Linux.

Are you actually saying that m$ is using open source in the way it is intended to produce windows7? Do you know anything at all about how windows7 actually works? -or do you just think it looks and feels nifty.

Here's something for you to read that will be coming to your beloved win7

http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en/w7itpronetworking/thread/6ef09d26-d9d5-4ea0-9dfb-410eb59257a7

http://www.ditii.com/2007/09/12/windows-vista-how-to-disable-tcpipv6-teredo-tunneling/

That little joy is m$ freely taking over your network. Think not? Just wait, you too can let m$ turn your system into an official m$ zombie and your lan/wan into a graveyard.

btw, I'm a 16 year m$ os sysadmin who switched over to linux about 1-2 months ago.
Hard to say I'm a linux fanboy, but damned easy after 16 years of supporting m$ systems to say I'm sure not a m$ fanboy.

Win7 will look like osX and run like os/2. Just like vista wanted to do and failed at.

And before all the m$ users jump on me, tell me this; where is the fabled winfs?
I'm running ext4 under linux developed in the wild after just a couple years. I've been waiting for winfs since the win2k server at Gateway rollout, oh, I dont know, last millenium or so.

p.s. m$ virtually stole DOS, did steal the shell gui, did steal about 1/3 of ntfs, did steal the point and select > execute concept, and did steal virtually all your rights as a consumer of commercial software. There, now I'm a fanboy in the bad sense; of something, I just dont know what.

[starcannon]

No, I'm not worried; No, its not a Linux killer.

Many of us run Linux distributions for a multitude of reasons, feelings on MS being aside.

Those who have taken safe haven with Linux because of the Vista fiasco are not overly likely to pay for Windows 7.

Those who are running Windows 7 instead of Vista are not likely to try anything else.

Those few who ran Linux instead of Vista, but really needed/wanted MS Windows, have already probably switched to the Win 7 beta, and subsequent RC's, again nothing lost.

If anything, I expect that in the end, Linux will have a slight gain in users, not a loss.

[Sealbhach]

I'm pretty sure Windows 7 could have a feature that makes it print money and people on here would find a way to say it sucks.

Unless it's Open Source not using it.:D

.

[k2t0f12d]

I'm pretty sure Windows 7 could have a feature that makes it print money and people on here would find a way to say it sucks.Well it doesn't. GNU+Linux prints freedom. Much nicer.

[-grubby]

Hard to say I'm a linux fanboy


All the dollar signs in "MS" imply something else...

[Viva]

I don't understand the hype about Windows 7. Bloated as usual, average at best.

[GepettoBR]

All the dollar signs in "MS" imply something else...

They imply he thinks Microsoft is a greedy corporation. From that to "linux fanboy" is a little jump. Maybe he's an Apple fanboy and prefers Apple's business model.

</devilsadvocate>

[CylnZ]

They imply he thinks Microsoft is a greedy corporation. From that to "linux fanboy" is a little jump. Maybe he's an Apple fanboy and prefers Apple's business model.

</devilsadvocate>

Nah, I've been anti apple since they killed my beloved Amiga 500. The apple LC didnt do anything better than the amiga and lots of stuff a whole lot worse. Apple just had more money was all. That being said, I dumped my TRS-80 model III like a rock for an apple II a few years before that.

Did you know the amiga was plug n play in 1987 and had native 16 bit color?

[Amilo1718]

If anything, I expect that in the end, Linux will have a slight gain in users, not a loss.
why do you think that?

[drooze]

why do you think that?

Vista didn't give us extra users, neither did netbooks. why the hell would 7 give us extra users?

[moe19790]

Nope, any new ver. of windows = the need of more powerful PC + more ram and the total less than average performance! So, nope windows 7 will change nothing!

[Groucho Marxist]

Of course Windows 7 is going to dominate the net book market; there is no option to deselect the default OS from the system whilst purchasing the hardware.

[0per4t0r]

1 good beer is better than all the cheap American Pisswater in the world. I do have my standards. :D
+1 I live in america, and I've seen canadian television, and I think american beer would have the same taste level as Canadian water.

Anyway, I don't think Windows 7 will kill Linux. The only thing that's good about Windows 7 is that it doesn't come with IE. I'm in a dual-boot, so I probably won't upgrade windows or ubuntu when either of them come out.

[50words]

Nope, any new ver. of windows = the need of more powerful PC + more ram and the total less than average performance!

Actually, Windows 7 has lower system requirements than Vista. I was able to run Win7 with Aero on my T43, and it was fast as heck, even though I cannot use Aero on that machine with Vista.

[mynameinc]

I don't understand the hype about Windows 7. Bloated as usual, average at best.

Exactly. I remember when Vista was released.

[ukripper]

Windows 7 rules/sucks...but who cares if u using Linux!!

[Pogeymanz]

I have to say, Win7 will likely be the best Windows OS ever. But I didn't start using Linux to find a better Windows, I started using Linux because I was tired of certain things from MS/Windows (and because all the work machines are Linux). So, let Win7 captivate the Windows people, I'm sticking around here.

There is no way that Windows can compare to Linux, especially with its price tag.

[jonian_g]

Windows7 = Windows Vista killer
Although MS wants it to be a Win XP killer.

The only thing I might ever consider as a Linux killer would be OpenSolaris.

[kgas]

Once switched to GNU/Linux there is no turn back. Hope some of you might have seen the IE8 adv.

[GepettoBR]

Windows7 = Windows Vista killer
Although MS wants it to be a Win XP killer.

The only thing I might ever consider as a Linux killer would be OpenSolaris.

I'd think of BSD as a much bigger threat than OpenSolaris.

[jonian_g]

I'd think of BSD as a much bigger threat than OpenSolaris.

BSD has been around longer than linux and linux is more popular. OpenSolaris is relatively new and is gaining popularity pretty fast. But of course BSD is a potential linux killer too.

[CylnZ]

BSD has been around longer than linux and linux is more popular. OpenSolaris is relatively new and is gaining popularity pretty fast. But of course BSD is a potential linux killer too.

Naw, some form of linux will survive. But if you look back up the timeline 20 years to 1989, who would have guessed at linux today? I would hope that given the exponential growth in users and accumulated knowledge that we cant begin to imagine the average user experience in 2029. 1024 bit O/S? Why not. Molecular light based hardware? Almost certainly. 20 years is a long long long time in computer land. Will linux still be around, or will it have passed into history? It kinda depends on what happens doesnt it? But no matter what, there will always be a leading edge place for innovaters to play with. And linux will leave its marks on how they play with computings future; so in that way, linux will live on for a long time to come.

[solitaire]

Heard about the latest "bug" in Windows 7?

The Netbook edition has a fixed Wallpaper & theme. Users can't change it from the Microsoft default. Even OEM makers will not be allowed to change the Desktop wallpaper or any of the theme!!

If you want to customize the theme you'll need to buy the full Home premium version...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/19/oems_cant_brand_windows_7_starter_desktop/

[starcannon]

Heard about the latest "bug" in Windows 7?

The Netbook edition has a fixed Wallpaper & theme. Users can't change it from the Microsoft default. Even OEM makers will not be allowed to change the Desktop wallpaper or any of the theme!!

If you want to customize the theme you'll need to buy the full Home premium version...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/19/oems_cant_brand_windows_7_starter_desktop/

MS needs to fire their marketers and get new ones.

[rolleander]

You can't technically 'kill' something that has this much user support! I think that Linux and Unix will exist forever in some form or another. Mac and Win - well, they rely too much on commercial support. - What would happen for example if Microsoft or Apple went bankrupt? Someone going to pick up the pieces? Most likely, but maybe not. If one version of Linux or unix goes by the wayside, there's another one... Linux - the OS that multiplies like rabbits

[rolleander]

Or, at worst Linux would become an undead OS rising from the crypt like AmigaOS... lol but that'd probably be 20 years later.

[DrewT]

Don't get me started. Anybody who has gone through the recent betrayal embodied in Office 2007 is unlikely to touch any Microsoft product ever again -- unless their employer forces them to, as mine does. If MS does produce a decent OS, it will only keep it decent long enough to capture the market, and then they'll find a way to sell users down the river. MS is not just a company that produces mediocre software on purpose; it's an evil empire. And its time has gone.

[ukripper]

MS is not just a company that produces mediocre software on purpose; it's an evil empire. And its time has gone.

I am not in favour of MS or any other company, just trying to rationalise here.

MS ain't that bad. Every company floating on stock exchange is there to make money, either through dominance or through betrayal - their moto "end result should be making profit only"!! Look at the latest example of recession these days which culminated through events of previous years but somehow still filled the pockets of big cats sitting on top positions(they ain't the only ones from MS)...Then why should MS be patented as the evil empire?

[tarps87]

Heard about the latest "bug" in Windows 7?

The Netbook edition has a fixed Wallpaper & theme. Users can't change it from the Microsoft default. Even OEM makers will not be allowed to change the Desktop wallpaper or any of the theme!!

If you want to customize the theme you'll need to buy the full Home premium version...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/19/oems_cant_brand_windows_7_starter_desktop/

That's a joke right? Even that's too far for microsoft, then again you can probably just rename the image file and replace it

You can't technically 'kill' something that has this much user support! I think that Linux and Unix will exist forever in some form or another. Mac and Win - well, they rely too much on commercial support. - What would happen for example if Microsoft or Apple went bankrupt? Someone going to pick up the pieces? Most likely, but maybe not. If one version of Linux or unix goes by the wayside, there's another one... Linux - the OS that multiplies like rabbits

But is apple went bust wouldn't that technically make microsoft a monopoly ;)

[DataCabbitKSW]

Tarps7, yes and no to the question if that was a joke. Windows 7 Starter edition, a version specifically made for low end hardware and developing nations had a limitation of only being able to run 3 applications at once. This was scrapped for several reasons, primarily because artificially limiting apllication execution was more trouble to code than it was worth, and secondarily because of community outcry. There is no specific "Netbook Edition" to speak of. Individuals and system builders will have to tailor their installs to their hardware specifications. If you only have 6GB of space, you will need to drop a lot of the fancy stuff like Media Center. However, Windows 7 has been shown to reliably be able to run on older hardware (provided there are drivers available). There was even report publicised recently about getting it running and usable on a Pentium II 266Mhz, with as low as 96MB of RAM. This took much tuning and prodding, but it worked.
As to the rest of the sentiment, I'm not here to try and make converts. Far from it. I love my SlackWare file server and Ubuntu development server. However, I also have a Windows 7 Development box, a Windows Vista workstation, a Windows XP test machine, and an Apple Mac Mini for testing builds on as well. I run a varied shop and each system has a use and its place. Am I going to try and scale up as high on a single blade server Windows2008 versus a Gentoo or even Ubuntu linux buildout? No. Am I going to try to give a general user an Ubuntu desktop and ask them to find and run a program compatible with MS Access or with QuickBooks? No to that also. I do have several single-purpose ubuntu-based paperwork mass-scanning stations built up, and I also have Windows Server based batch check scanners. Everything has a place and purpose.
For those who need to use Windows, Windows 7 will be a heavy improvement, both in usability and in technology capabilities. If you don't use Windows, then Windows 7 won't make you gasp, roll over and proclaim to the heavens that you have been a heathen and wish to convert. If you move back and forth, you just might start spending some more time in Windows 7 instead, just because you may like the new environment and the speed and resource improvements. I know a closer for me is the updated touchscreen capabilities (like improved writing recognition, math formula, and foreign character recognition, as well as now Multi-Touch if your hardware supports it) and much more tuneable security profiles that can change automatically based upon your network environment.
Just my opinion and view on it. Windows 7 isn't a Linux killer. It isn't meant to be. It is the next step for Windows, and I think this time, it may be a well placed step.

[chome4]

Windows is relatively expensive for what it is. An operating system is a base on which you put your 'stuff', games, business, TV, DVD....etc and shouldn't cost a lot.

In the future, public organisations who take taxpayers money will be running Linux on desktops.

The next generation of pcs will be even more expensive than they are now. Intel and Microsoft need people to spend lots on hardware and they market their products accordingly.

Ever watch QVC and see how expensive the laptops are? Amazingly, people buy the stuff based on the hype. Intel and Microsoft - along with their dealers - are very happy with public ignorance.

I'll continue to convert my family and friends...one person at a time.......

[Blacklightbulb]

Windows 7 has nothing more to offer than Ubuntu or any other Linux distro.

And still - How could it be better than Linux when it
1. IS MUCH MORE PRONE TO MALWARE.
2. REQUIRES MORE PROCESSING POWER.
3. COSTS TOO MUCH!!!!!
4. Is a product of a business corporation (I hate those sons of satana)

anyways...............

[DataCabbitKSW]

Double post.

[hyperzahranism]

windows is a bug ,, linux ment to fix it

when i quit using windows i've never thought i will go back to it again what ever they intervent or create to satisfy their users

when i knew ubuntu immediately i decided to quit windows & i knew that i was in the wrong way since long time & i wished that i knew ubuntu since long time

it's really amazing, creative by itself


simply i don't care about windows any more

[tarps87]

Tarps7, yes and no to the question if that was a joke. Windows 7 Starter edition, a version specifically made for low end hardware and developing nations had a limitation of only being able to run 3 applications at once. This was scrapped for several reasons, primarily because artificially limiting apllication execution was more trouble to code than it was worth, and secondarily because of community outcry. ...

That would defiantly be too far, not only would it forcing people to buy the full release if they brought a netbook (or whatever they're called now). It would give the appearance that it is very memory hungry, they would have bitten themselves.
Then again that appears to be the way things are going, just look at DRM and what was planned for blue ray movies.

[bootdoc]

1, buy windows and you never stop paying.
2, freedom of choice
3, much larger community with linux (friendly one at that)
4, faster innovation with linux
5, The more people adopt linux the faster the innovation.
6, more companies contributing to linux (oracle, sun, IBM, Nokia, HP the list goes on.)

can you add more reasons?
windows 7 patched vista

[JordyD]

Every time they are about to release a new version everyone says "it's that best one yet!" and then when it's actually released "this is awful, they really messed up this time."

So I think there is an excuse to not believe all the Windows 7 hype, don't you?

[blackxored]

I have a co-worker running Windows Seven.
I'll tell you this: "Windows 7: it's Vista-SPx"
The new amazing features have been in open source software a long time ago. Appearance changes not comparable to Compiz. Who whould care about W7? Certainly not me.

[GepettoBR]

1, buy windows and you never stop paying.
2, freedom of choice
3, much larger community with linux (friendly one at that)
4, faster innovation with linux
5, The more people adopt linux the faster the innovation.
6, more companies contributing to linux (oracle, sun, IBM, Nokia, HP the list goes on.)

can you add more reasons?
windows 7 patched vista

I laughed at number 3. It's not wrong if you adopt very specific interpretations of what a "community" is, but in broad sense, the Windows support community (including Microsoft Tech Support, &c) is dozens of times larger than the whole Linux userbase.

[evermooingcow]

Linux won't die for things like loss of popularity. The core of Linux is not out to make money. Also there will still be high demend for Linux on the server side.

To completely kill off Linux Microsoft would have to impress the Linux developers around the world enough to make them all want to switch to Windows and frankly I don't think such developers would be satisfied by *any* OS that is closed source.

[geoken]

1, buy windows and you never stop paying.
2, freedom of choice
3, much larger community with linux (friendly one at that)
4, faster innovation with linux
5, The more people adopt linux the faster the innovation.
6, more companies contributing to linux (oracle, sun, IBM, Nokia, HP the list goes on.)

can you add more reasons?
windows 7 patched vista

1. I'm pretty sure you stop paying the instant you've bought it. My old PII was upgraded from 2k to XP, apart from the upgrade disk I've never had to pay anything?
2. With what?

What faster innovation are you talking about? Snow flakes on your desktop?

[bootdoc]

if you haven't read up on new kernel development here is link.

new in kernel 2.6.30

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Linux-Kernel-2-6-30-Is-Out-Includes-the-NILFS2-Filesystem-113733.shtml

I worked in a windows shop for a couple months 2 yrs ago. customers kept paying to have their machines cleaned of infections. My main job was to backup data, run anti-virus on the data and reinstall windows at 75.00/hr.
We're talking thousands of infections. have you read about the conflicker worm? http://www.switched.com/2009/01/28/what-is-the-conflicker-virus-and-should-you-be-worried/

I got one customer to switch to linux because he would have had to BUY all new software to be compatible with vista. When you use windows you will pay one way or another.

I have been windows free for years. Free from malware. Free software upgrades, free from corporate lock-in, free from MS and MAC.

windows vista has been the best business for me ever. I have people calling me to switch to linux. we'll see how 7 does.

The tribe of hackers, after decades spent in obscurity struggling against hard technical problems and the far greater weight of mainstream indifference and dismissal, has recently begun to come into its own. They built the Internet; they built Unix; they built the World Wide Web; they're building Linux and open-source software today; and, following the great Internet explosion of the mid-1990s, the rest of the world is finally figuring out that it should have been paying more attention to them all along.
"the cathedral and the bazaar"
http://catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/

[tarps87]

1, buy windows and you never stop paying.
2, freedom of choice
3, much larger community with linux (friendly one at that)
4, faster innovation with linux
5, The more people adopt linux the faster the innovation.
6, more companies contributing to linux (oracle, sun, IBM, Nokia, HP the list goes on.)

can you add more reasons?
windows 7 patched vista
I laughed at number 3. It's not wrong if you adopt very specific interpretations of what a "community" is, but in broad sense, the Windows support community (including Microsoft Tech Support, &c) is dozens of times larger than the whole Linux userbase.

What friendly? GepettoBR your banned ;)

[GepettoBR]

What friendly? GepettoBR your banned ;)

The word "friendly" does not appear even once in my post. What're you talking about?

[Screwdriver0815]

I am not in favour of MS or any other company, just trying to rationalise here.

MS ain't that bad. Every company floating on stock exchange is there to make money, either through dominance or through betrayal - their moto "end result should be making profit only"!! Look at the latest example of recession these days which culminated through events of previous years but somehow still filled the pockets of big cats sitting on top positions(they ain't the only ones from MS)...Then why should MS be patented as the evil empire?
its all about behaviour. The behaviour of a company towards its customers makes the image.
Because Microsoft behaves like an evil empire, they have this image. I as a customer do not appreciate when a company says: "look we want to make as much profit as possible and therefore we limit your rights and your freedom. You as our customer who pays our bills have to understand this" - no I actually don't because I as a customer want to get service and the best for my money.
Microsoft who do DRM, this limitation stuff regarding wallpaper in Win7... and all these things build up an image like an octopus which grabs everything but does not give anything.

Then we have another company which is listed at the stock exchange: Red Hat.
They do a lot of sharing with the community. All the patents are free to the community if Red Hat in return can use patents which are created in the community. Red Hat serves their customers so well that they have a really good image. The customers trust Red Hat.
With its good behaviour, consisting of giving and get back, doing fair competition, service for the customer they have built up a really good image.

So if it is like that: a company which is listed at the stock exchange must behave like crap to be successfull: why is Red Hat not bankrupt then?

[tarps87]

The word "friendly" does not appear even once in my post. What're you talking about?

In know but you were commenting on previous post about the community and it being friendly, also I can't attack a new member, especially one that I did not see in the banning thread

[GepettoBR]

In know but you were commenting on previous post about the community and it being friendly, also I can't attack a new member, especially one that I did not see in the banning thread

Well, the Linux community isn't always so friendly either, and the reason is the same: fanboys.

[Name change]

Windows 7 is as much a Linux killer, as 2010 is the year of Linux on the desktop. :D

[Tipped OuT]

Windows 7 is just another operating system, the only reason it's so hyped up, is because Microsoft finally did good, and made up for how much Vista sucked.

I personally like Windows 7.

But, do I think it's a "Linux Killer"? No. Unless Microsoft goes open source and becomes the same type of operating system Linux is (yes I know it's just a kernel).

Because then, you'd have the same support, and freedom of Linux, but with good drivers, thousands of commercial games, and professional applications, like Photoshop.

[Divider]

3 reason why 7 will fail.

1. Millennium edition? Media Center edition? need I say more?

2. It's vista with multitouch.

3. Linux runs on a potato.

Microshit Eat your heart out.

[Tipped OuT]

3 reason why 7 will fail.

1. Millennium edition? Media Center edition? need I say more?

2. It's vista with multitouch.

3. Linux runs on a potato.

Microshit Eat your heart out.

1. What? There's going to be the same versions (Home Edition, Ultimate etc.) of Windows Vista for Windows 7, not "Millennium Edition" and all of that.

2. That's just ignorant.

3. Linux is just a kernel, Windows is an operating system, almost anything can run off of any kernel, so what exactly is your point?

That last line told me all I need to know. :wink:

[ukripper]

Then we have another company which is listed at the stock exchange: Red Hat.
They do a lot of sharing with the community. All the patents are free to the community if Red Hat in return can use patents which are created in the community. Red Hat serves their customers so well that they have a really good image. The customers trust Red Hat.
With its good behaviour, consisting of giving and get back, doing fair competition, service for the customer they have built up a really good image.

So if it is like that: a company which is listed at the stock exchange must behave like crap to be successfull: why is Red Hat not bankrupt then?

I agree with you that Redhat has good reputation but what about profit margin? Can you compare that with any other company in the same league like apple, MS or even google? They are all in for profit and that is how commercial world goes about. Google made Android open source because there is a catch, which is to tap in mobile market and take away from Windows mobile and Apple. Customer are always second if not third, first comes the profit for any company who is selfish enough!

[tarps87]

Well, the Linux community isn't always so friendly either, and the reason is the same: fanboys.

Unfortunately true and I doubt it will change

Windows 7 is as much a Linux killer, as 2010 is the year of Linux on the desktop. :D

It's on my desktop ;)

I have no intentions of buying it or using it at home, I only hope it is better than vista and the security is improved, without moving all the menus again (we that or better command line support). That way if I have to keep working on a windows machine after xp support stops again it won't reduce productivity

[el.otro]

I am a fairly new Ubuntu user, and within the first month of learning about linux, I started working on setting up a web server, no matter how many advanced features windows may have, I haven't found the freedom and inspiration using it that I have found on linux.

The fact that the CLI is seen as a "geeks pardise" by many windows users (which I never used on win, because of that), and that you can't use it without booting into "command line" and that if your graphics fail you entire system is unusable, and that you only have one LIMITED workspace, and that my laptop seems to have a leak for battery life (doesn't last an hour w/o complaining)....I won't go back.

Also, I don't want to support the monopolistic/bully/anti-human practices of m$ and their commercial partners (however much I can, hardware is still not as Free).

The amount of possibilities you get in a linux box are infinite, whereas a win box forces you to "add features" by buying more.

I think the Linux Killer is a combination of two factors (that I can think of now):


Fanboys (as someone said before), who defend linux only under the arguments of "X-OS sux" (pun), "M$, too", etc, etc (or should I write /etc), and don't take the IDEOLOGICAL decision to STICK WITH LINUX BECAUSE IT IS FREE, because it is the work of a community, and I want to support it, no matter how much tweaking I have to make to keep it running, no matter how slick the new GUI is on the latest MS release, and I SEE the problems linux has and understand the positive aspects of other OSs to criticize linux constructively: not to defend it blindly. So when you talk to a potential linux user, you explain more partially the reasons for the change.
and social structuring, which teaches us that "easier" is better, and one doesn't expect to learn anything new from using your computer, but want it to use you with its web browsing and useless congested social sites. The problem doesn't boil down to technical ability, but to the interest of people.

Marketing? I don't think so. Marketing is a very capitalistic form, I'd rather see people changing to linux because they trust the person who talks about it, a neighbor, a teacher, because the linux user expresses KNOWLEDGE and willingness to help.

Even if it takes longer. The idea is not to "dominate the desktop market", but to continue growing in a constructive way, with the people who have a conviction.
It might be a little utopic, but I think it is healthier (ideologically speaking).

[GepettoBR]

Even if it takes longer. The idea is not to "dominate the desktop market", but to continue growing in a constructive way, with the people who have a conviction.
It might be a little utopic, but I think it is healthier (ideologically speaking).

And thus we charge at windmills.

Puns aside, I agree with you 100%. I don't care an inch if Linux (as a whole, or any particular flavor) ever gets a majority market share. I'd hate to see the day when Windows and the Mac OS are gone. The most obvious reason why Open-Source stimulates creativity is exactly the same reason why commercial competition stimulates creativity (minus the bottleneck of secrecy, obviously). I think the current slanted condition of the market isn't good, and I'd love to see Microsoft's market share drop. But I want that void to be filled by as many options as possible: Solaris, Linux, BSD, ReactOS, Haiku or what have you. Several different approaches to getting the job done.

And I think the same thing about other aspects of technology. For example, even though I'm a GNOME user I lament the fact that GNOME and KDE are so much bigger than other DEs that many new users take months to find out that there even exist other options (no less because the former is way too similar to the OSX interface and the latter to Windows's), and even then they don't go far past XFCE and Enlightenment. I'd like to see more of Fluxbox and IceWM around, just to name two. And yes, I realize that I mixed window managers and desktop environments. In the end, they serve the same purpose.

Freedom of choice can only be fulfilled when there are options to choose from, and when people have prompt access to the information they need to make a thought-out choice.

[yanom]

I don't think so. Linux has a very strong, motivated community behind it. It's not going anywhere.

of course it's not going anywhere. Penguins are HEAVY.

[rolleander]

I wouldn't mind MS if they were more honest, ie. naming the new windows - Windows NE (nightmare edition) then after they update and patch, call it Windows BNE - Band-aided nightmare edition...but windows works ok only for people who want to spend all their free time learning how to make their computer as secure as can be - but that can take more time than actually learning to use an OS that already works securely and you really don't have to be a rocket scientist to learn it like most people think. I find that a lot of things are easier to do in Linux than in Windows.
1. Easier to partician a drive
2. Easier to set up a network
3. Easier to secure
4. Easier to update
5. Easier to install new programs, unless you want something outside of the repositories

Besides, the vast majority of computer users - at least in the US - just want to check e-mail, write documents, check their MySpace, and all that stuff. Gee, what OS can't you do that with? I think that if more people were informed, than maybe Windows wouldn't be the leading OS - I really don't care if Mac overtakes and becomes #1 because at least they are less bad and I never hear many people complain about their support or viruses, etc. I'll still be here using Linux, however.

[starcannon]

1. I'm pretty sure you stop paying the instant you've bought it.
That would be nice, but its not true. In order to continue using windows, one must continue to buy the latest versions, upgrades, new hardware (because the latest version will be such a pig that your old hardware can't run it), anti-virus subscriptions, firewalls, and on, and on, and on.

My old PII was upgraded from 2k to XP, apart from the upgrade disk I've never had to pay anything?You could run XP on a PII, it'd be painful, but doable; however, lets see you upgrade that PII to Vista or 7 hehe. By the way, the upgrade disk price means you didn't stop paying the instant you bought it. Your computer probably shipped with 98se or ME on it, was upgraded to 2k, then upgraded to XP; thats quite a bit of "stop paying the instant you bought it"; I quit smoking 10 times a day.

2. With what?
EVERYTHING, you can even recompile the Kernel with the bare minimum that your needs require. Indeed the question isn't what you have freedom of choice with in Linux, it would be a much shorter list to ask what you DON'T have freedom of choice with in Linux.

What faster innovation are you talking about? Snow flakes on your desktop?The context was clear to me, I believe the post you are quoting and paraphrasing was pointing out the obvious; which is, when enough people migrate to anything... fire, the wheel, horse and buggy, steam engines, cars, etc... that industry will put money, time, and other resources into it; thereby speeding up innovation.

P.S. I already have snow flakes on my desktop. :lolflag:

[joriad]

Windows 7! What a joke. Yet another idiotic Micro$ project that fails to impress me. At least with Linux I can get better screen resolution on older monitors. With windows 7 I am stuck at low resolution, and I won't be stuck. They continue the forced system upgrades on the masses. All I have left to say about Micro$ is SHAME ON YOU.

[Calmatory]

Windows 7! What a joke. Yet another idiotic Micro$ project that fails to impress me. At least with Linux I can get better screen resolution on older monitors. With windows 7 I am stuck at low resolution, and I won't be stuck. They continue the forced system upgrades on the masses. All I have left to say about Micro$ is SHAME ON YOU.

Yet another ignorant zealot in blind rage for nothing. The problem with the display resolutions is that drivers are in control of them, not Windows. Why are you raging at Microsoft and Windows when the driver provider is to blame?

Stop the blind hatred and learn to love and hate out of a reason, instead of out of bad principle.

People should relax and focus on things they love, for the reason they love.

[Viva]

Yet another ignorant zealot in blind rage for nothing. The problem with the display resolutions is that drivers are in control of them, not Windows. Why are you raging at Microsoft and Windows when the driver provider is to blame?

Stop the blind hatred and learn to love and hate out of a reason, instead of out of bad principle.

People should relax and focus on things they love, for the reason they love.

Calm down. I've seen worse rants, including people blaming linux for the lack of shockwave and poor flash support.

[joriad]

Yet another ignorant zealot in blind rage for nothing. The problem with the display resolutions is that drivers are in control of them, not Windows. Why are you raging at Microsoft and Windows when the driver provider is to blame?

Stop the blind hatred and learn to love and hate out of a reason, instead of out of bad principle.

People should relax and focus on things they love, for the reason they love.

Wow! didn't mean to hit a nerve there. Linux is able to develop operating systems and upgrade those systems while still having support for older gear and they do this every six months. Micro$ failed with vista because of driver incompatibility and now the same with 7. And how many years has it been since they had a success, since XP?

[wrtpeeps]

It's not a linux killer, but it will make a dent.

Best version of windows yet.

Don't even have to worry about support for stuff this time round. It runs everything vista and xp ran, and it requires less system resources than vista.

[gjoellee]

There is no way anything would kill Linux.

[wrtpeeps]

Nope, any new ver. of windows = the need of more powerful PC + more ram and the total less than average performance! So, nope windows 7 will change nothing!

So in actual fact, you have no idea what you are talking about. Kind of hilarious how you state something as fact, only to be totally wrong.

:D

[Viva]

So in actual fact, you have no idea what you are talking about. Kind of hilarious how you state something as fact, only to be totally wrong.

:D

He is right to an extent.

Version CPU RAM
95, 386 33 mhz, 55mb
98, 486 66 MHz, 16MB
ME, Pentium 150 MHz, 32MB
2000, Pentium, 133 MHz, 32 MB
XP, Pentium MMX, 233 MHz/ 300 MHz or higher, 128 MB
Vista, Pentium III, 800 MHz, 512 MB/1 GB
Windows 7, 1 GHz , 1GB(2 GB for a 64 bit system)

[Calmatory]

Wow! didn't mean to hit a nerve there. Linux is able to develop operating systems and upgrade those systems while still having support for older gear and they do this every six months. Micro$ failed with vista because of driver incompatibility and now the same with 7. And how many years has it been since they had a success, since XP?

Sometimes the backwards incompatibility has to be broken in order to improve the driver layer, this is what they did in Vista. It is device manufacturers job to make sure the device works properly on it's targetted platforms/operating systems.

Both camps have their pros and cons when it comes to driver development, one con on Microsoft's side would be "recently" broken backwards incompatibility when they introduced the new Windows Vista Display Driver Model. This however enabled it to make better tools for driver developers and possibly better quality of video drivers, which are extremely complex.

[tsali]

It is device manufacturers job to make sure the device works properly on it's targetted platforms/operating systems.


It is the OS developer's job to make sure the device manufacturer is adequately supported and prepared.

Microsoft screwed this up with Vista. They rushed it out the door without letting hardware developers come to speed - hence the inital hardware horror stories. Hopefully they've learned an lesson.

Is there a unified approach to device driver management and development in linux? Who is the owner? Are they making sure that hardware companies are well supported?

[dragos240]

I do not believe that windows 7 will be a linux killer. For most of us that use Linux, it's not just an operating system (well.... actually it's a kernel with GNU tools.), but a reliable tool to use as we please. When I use Linux, I am more productive, I get more done, and on my system, it's very fast. Compared to 1 gb of ram space Vista takes up, I suspect windows 7 will not be any difference. And even if it does get good reviews, I will not switch. Perhaps I will get W2K for VirtualBox, but that would be all. Linux is, and always will be, my operating system. I have absolutely nothing against windows, but for the most part, I do not believe it will make the majority of us switch. Linux is magic, Linux is wonder, and Linux cannot be taken away from me.

[Dullstar]

I may be planning on getting a Mac, but that's NOT a pulling away from Linux as some people seem to think. Is dual-booting between Mac OS X and Ubuntu a problem? So, no, Linux can't be pulled away from me...

Now... about Windows 7. Upgrade for my brother, who uses Windows XP (at least he seems to be satisfied with the RC). For me, who uses Linux, it's a downgrade!

[Calmatory]

It is the OS developer's job to make sure the device manufacturer is adequately supported and prepared.

Microsoft screwed this up with Vista. They rushed it out the door without letting hardware developers come to speed - hence the inital hardware horror stories. Hopefully they've learned an lesson.

Is there a unified approach to device driver management and development in linux? Who is the owner? Are they making sure that hardware companies are well supported?

Microsoft did indeed rush a bit. However, given the complexity of video drivers I am surprised the drivers were partly rewritten such fast back then. Sure did Microsoft notify the device manufacturers(as the whole WVDDM move was partly due to push from the developers) way before they made a public statement about it.

[fixerdave]

Your answer is "free"...

Even if they gave away Win-v7 (or it was so easy to steal that everyone just did) it wouldn't matter. Why, because you will still have to click through all those stupid ELUAs during an install.

Bottom line:

Installing Ubuntu: Boot to CD, answer a few questions, walk away. Come back, start update manager, walk away. Come back, select ALL the software I want installed, walk away. Come back, shut down, and the box is ready to deliver. Yeah, I could shorten that list, but it's only a few minutes of actual work all combined.

Installing Windows/OS-X/Whatever is not free: Boot to CD, answer a few questions, walk away. Come back, run updates, answer some more questions... oh, have to come back and hit Okay to the license agreement... oh, there's another one. Okay, come back, install application A, say Okay, yes, I've read the stupid ELUA (NOT!) and enter the license code, walk away, come back, oh crud, it wants to know where to install, like I care, yes, default is fine, go away. Come back, do application B) repeat, repeat, repeat,... repeat, repeat. This assumes that you don't have to go off on the great XP driver hunt, or, worse yet, the oh-so-much-fun "guess the motherboard" game. Don't even get me started on the "Windows Genuine Advantage" thing.

You see, these for-profit applications just can't compete against free. Free doesn't need all the ELUAs, doesn't need DRM, doesn't need "Enter your 16 million digit license code here..." WHAT IS YOUR NAME? WHERE ARE YOUR PAPERS? It's all a load of completely unnecessary crap... when the applications are free. In the long run, once Open-Source is "good enough," Microsoft and Apple will simply not be able to compete, not without going Open-Source themselves. It's only a matter of time.

Right now, I can install an Ubuntu box for my Mom with a few minutes work. With it, she can write her letters and go off and browse the web, maybe play a card game. Sure, she can do the same think in Windows, after I waste 4-6 hours installing everything. What do you think she's running on her computer?

Like I care what Windows v7 is like...

[juancarlospaco]

Oh yeah...
The same said for "Windows Vista - Linux Killer?" and
on the past "Windows Millenium - Linux Killer?"

And here we are :)

[73ckn797]

With only a few minor issues, Linux is my choice. I do not have it on my desktop anymore and will not, in the immediate future, plan on using it again.

[doorknob60]

I like Windows 7, but it's not gonna stop me from using Linux. I can't see Linux ever dying for quite a while.

[Eremis]

NEVER.....

Windows 7 is just another vista (yes i have tried the RC version)

Windows 7 basicly copied KDE(were do u think their taskbar w/ icons came from) + Mac

[GepettoBR]

Windows 7 basicly copied KDE(were do u think their taskbar w/ icons came from) + Mac

And KDE 4 copied Vista with Kicker, and Rhythmbox ripped off the iTunes interface and that commercial disaster of a home computer from Xerox had a GUI long before Windows ever existed, and &c &c... Please, let's not get into this for the billionth time in this thread alone. Incorporating your own version of a good feature from the competing product is a good thing, and it's healthy for all parties involved - especially the consumer. This is not a negative point.

[Tipped OuT]

And KDE 4 copied Vista with Kicker, and Rhythmbox ripped off the iTunes interface and that commercial disaster of a home computer from Xerox had a GUI long before Windows ever existed, and &c &c... Please, let's not get into this for the billionth time in this thread alone. Incorporating your own version of a good feature from the competing product is a good thing, and it's healthy for all parties involved - especially the consumer. This is not a negative point.

+1

It's not stealing. It's "incorporating your own version of a good feature". Sometimes that's what you got to do, and it's not bad at all. I wouldn't mind an operating system with all of the good features of Mac, Windows, and Linux. It would be the best.

I would understand if Microsoft just took KDE 4, slapped their logo on it, and called it Windows 7, but that's not the case.

[roharme]

Blindly dont say Windows Seven a Linux Killer.

If some one switches to Windows 7 from Linux, they must be using Linux for no big use or just for name sake.

Ofcourse windows 7 is the best of Microsoft Products runs in a pretty normal system no big hardware required.But i dont think it is no way after linux users.

Remeber it is not easy to switch between CLEAR and CLS :D :D

[roharme]

Windows 7 is just another vista (yes i have tried the RC version)

ac


Certainly not.!!

Windows Se7en is very much lightter than Windows Vista. And it might drive many people from Windows XP.

[GepettoBR]

Certainly not.!!

Windows Se7en is very much lightter than Windows Vista. And it might drive many people from Windows XP.

True. I've got the RC running in a VM and I intend to switch my XP machine early next year, when the price drops a bit.

[bodyharvester]

:lolflag:

[Arup]

So when do we attend Linux funeral? Where is the venue?

[RockinRob2258]

The easy solution to cure all these market share problems Linux is said to have, and that some loose sleep over?












Open a nice Woodchuck Apple Cider, and not give a **** what OS others use

I prefer a good stout ale such as Guinness or the Coalminer Stout from my hometown's microbrewery.
Will Windows 7 kill Linux? Remember, Linux dominates the server market, and is attempting to make a dent in the "workstation" (I'm including everything from desktops to netbooks, basically non-server) market. For the netbook market, I think Chrome OS is potentially a bigger contender than Windows 7. We'll just have to wait and see what happens. Bottom line, the community environment that Linux and the Ubuntu Foundation have fostered is not going to be thwarted by a commercial operating system. It's something more than dominance through marketshare.

[BigSilly]

Windows 7 is going to make *zero* difference to Linux. The question is, will Windows 7 be enough for Microsoft? I personally think the days of 90+ share on the desktop for Microsoft are coming to an end, but we'll see I suppose.

[SlugSlug]

I find it gutting when I have to reboot in to XP to play a game,
win7 doesn't interest me in the slightest.

[K4KEP]

Primož Papič



Did you know there is a GNU compeditor for windows in the workd (ReactOS)?
F R E E


WWW.REACTOS.COM

[MasterNetra]

Primož Papič



Did you know there is a GNU compeditor for windows in the workd (ReactOS)?
F R E E


WWW.REACTOS.COM

Do you realize that ReactOS is in such a alpha state that its not really usable yet? I currently don't have much hope for it sense its basing it compatibility on XP which means by the time its ready for use, windows 8 will probably be out and XP obsolete...but then again prehaps after its ready prehaps they will be able to adapt its compatibility to the newer OS quickly enough before that one becomes obsolete...We'll see I guess.

[doas777]

ummm, something has to be market dominant before the competition can come up with a <insert your product name here>-Killer.

perhaps BSD could become a linux-killer, but I can't think of too much else.

[GepettoBR]

Primož Papič



Did you know there is a GNU compeditor for windows in the workd (ReactOS)?
F R E E


WWW.REACTOS.COM

You sound like a spambot, and I don't think the ReactOS folk will enjoy being associated with spambots.

[Giant Speck]

Windows 7 is going to make *zero* difference to Linux.

That isn't completely true. As long as Windows is still in the marketplace, Microsoft is still one of Linux's biggest competitors and also one of its biggest influences. Granted, its influence isn't always positive just as it isn't always negative, but the influence is still there.

People will keep migrating to Linux and some will migrate back to Windows. That is what has always happened and what will probably always happen, up until the death of either Windows or Linux.

[jmax]

I took ubuntu off the pc and put on windows7- it has several interesting
features which I found annoying. It doesn't have an email program, you have
to either buy Office to get outlook or use hotmail. Didn't like that.

Secondly, it kicked me of the net for no apparent reason and wouldn't find
the network. Ok if I'm not interested in getting the net on the pc but
not good either as I fancy a quick surf every now and then.

Its quick tho, no doubt about that and its pretty. But why I switched back
to unbuntu 9.04 is that ubuntu gives a stable connection to the net and
windows 7 doesn't.

I won't be using it for this reason and that it costs a few hundred dollars
more than ubuntu.

The only thing I have against linux is that the games usually suck bigtime.

Still can't have everything.

[TheNessus]

or use Sunbird...? There are open-source free programs available on windows too. You don't "have to use" hotmail, outlook, or MS office.

not that I used 7 yet, i'm indifferent.

[Mr2sday]

No offense but did you read any of the reviews...everybody said basically windows 7 is the Vista with a new name and all the fixes that vista needed. Its still the same slow POS Microsoft came out with at first.

Its definitely better but no leap forward in quality. I will still happily stay here in Ubuntu...who wouldn't?

I have an xp box for one reason and one reason only...Quickbooks! I hope someday Inuit figures out how many people want Quickbooks on Linux and give us a good version. then life will be complete and windows can eat a big fat...well you know.

[imajeff]

I have heard the question many times. I learned after a few MS releases that they are good at making the next release (that is not out yet) look really good (PR). Problem is, eventually customers will have to actually start using it. It is normal to ALWAYS hope that the next release will fix the annoying or harmful problems and design flaws. My problem has been the MS never addresses any problem directly. If I tell them a problem, I am either invisible to them or a pest that they need to get rid of. The only hope is that when they supposedly "rewrite" Win from the ground up on the next amazing release, maybe they didn't make the same mistake.

On the other hand, Linux distros have really helped by giving me ways to address one problem and even get many of them fixed in the same release of a distro, not wait until a whole new release where I have to relearn the entire basic outline of the system again!

[shavenlunatic]

I hate to admit it but Windows 7 is..... good

Will I defect back to windows? Unlikely

Will I have a Windows 7 dual boot for gaming rather than XP? Most definitely, it is simply better than anything MS have released before.. I ran the RC with great cynicism, but was surprised (and kinda disappointed that it didn't suck and I couldn't bitch about it)

Will I be willing to buy Windows 7 or pay Microsoft Tax on a machine? Probably not

I doubt Windows 7 will steal me away from linux any time soon (although I'm primarily playing with iAtkos at the minute as I'm curious and filthy and happy to wipe my machine regularly... Mint Linux next I think) - but I really can't see how anyone with no blinkers on can honestly say that Windows7 sucks on a technical level :confused:


*ducks for cover*

[cptrohn]

Primož Papič



Did you know there is a GNU compeditor for windows in the workd (ReactOS)?
F R E E


WWW.REACTOS.COM

If I wanted an OS that worked just like windows.... wouldn't I just use Windows?

[GepettoBR]

Wait, so you're going to use it in a dual-boot but not pay?

You know that using a pirated Windows is more harmful than using a legitimate copy, right?

Anyways, I agree with you. Windows 7 is a lot better. If I had to compare it to, say, Kubuntu Feisty running KDE3, I'd probably not have made the switch to Linux as soon as I did. It's as fast on ym VM with only 768MB of RAM as my actual XP install on the same machine with 2048MB. Of course, XP has many more programs installed, which slows down Windows a lot due to the registry, but at half the RAM and sharing CPU and GPU usage with my host system, it's still a very impressive improvement.

I"m gauging W7 agaisnt XP, because I don't consider Vista an actual OS.

[zerhacke]

I believe it is the other way around, the thread title.

My wife has a quad core system with multiple gigabytes of RAM. My little 256MB 1.6Ghz single core system with Ubuntu 9.04 ran circles around her Win7 Ultimate setup. She gave up on Windows after using it since 1994 and is strictly the hot Linux chick now.

[magneze]

The short answer is no, obviously. I can't really see why enterprises that didn't upgrade en-masse from XP to Vista will upgrade from XP to 7 either. It would still be a massive headache for IT departments.

The trick for Linux is to convince IT departments that it offers a more stable path than Windows somewhat haphazard trajectory as Microsoft tries to be Apple or Google or both.

Ubuntu 9 really is ready for the desktop - IMO the first release that really was.

[running_rabbit07]

The short answer is no, obviously. I can't really see why enterprises that didn't upgrade en-masse from XP to Vista will upgrade from XP to 7 either. It would still be a massive headache for IT departments.

The trick for Linux is to convince IT departments that it offers a more stable path than Windows somewhat haphazard trajectory as Microsoft tries to be Apple or Google or both.

Ubuntu 9 really is ready for the desktop - IMO the first release that really was.

Then companies will start laying off IT techs. Keep them changing Windows once a year and keep the jobs going.

[magneze]

Then companies will start laying off IT techs. Keep them changing Windows once a year and keep the jobs going.Eh? What are you on about? Windows doesn't release once a year, the point I was making was that XP hasn't been changed for years!

[j.bell730]

The only thing I can say about Windows 7 is...
Hahahahahahahahaha.

[running_rabbit07]

Eh? What are you on about? Windows doesn't release once a year, the point I was making was that XP hasn't been changed for years!

I know MS doesn't release every year, but they should. Companies will have to drop XP soon because MS is going to stop support for it sooner or later, same as they did with 2000 Pro.

[magneze]

I know MS doesn't release every year, but they should. Companies will have to drop XP soon because MS is going to stop support for it sooner or later, same as they did with 2000 Pro.I still fail to understand your point about laying off IT techs ...:confused:

[conradin]

I want to give up the opensource life style and start buying freeware thats been bloated, marked up, and made proprietary by the vendor who stole it. Ill go back to having software that doesnt do what I want, and slow data transfers. OOh, and filesystems with no journaling. And And,.. no thanks.

[running_rabbit07]

I still fail to understand your point about laying off IT techs ...:confused:

Because once a Linux system is up and running, it needs less support. No viruses crashing peoples system within the company that can't stay away from myspace for 8 hours. CPUs burn up slower because they aren't being overworked when using Linux. There are a lot of things that go wrong because of how MS works on a system.

[Bachstelze]

Because once a Linux system is up and running, it needs less support. No viruses crashing peoples system within the company that can't stay away from myspace for 8 hours. CPUs burn up slower because they aren't being overworked when using Linux. There are a lot of things that go wrong because of how MS works on a system.

Maybe, but don't worry about the IT people. They'll be kept busy by employees asking where is MS Word or how you change your wallpaper. ;)

[running_rabbit07]

Maybe, but don't worry about the IT people. They'll be kept busy by employees asking where is MS Word or how you change your wallpaper. ;)

Lol, forgot about them.

[magneze]

maybe, but don't worry about the it people. They'll be kept busy by employees asking where is ms word or how you change your wallpaper. ;) :grin:

[Freedomeagle1967]

Not even close. I have win 7 beta in VirtualBox, and it is a lot better than Vista, yet no threat to the Linux community. I believe that this thread is a failed attempt from Microsoft marketing department to spread propaganda. The operative word is community, windows does not have a community of trust, or friendship, or... or... or... the list goes on.
Peace,
Scott

[Bachstelze]

I believe that this thread is a failed attempt from Microsoft marketing department to spread propaganda.

The OP has been a member here for longer than you.

[Johnsie]

Until Linux is compatible with Windows drivers Windows 7 wont have much killing to do. Hardware support is the main reason why people refuse to switch.

[GepettoBR]

Until Linux is compatible with Windows drivers Windows 7 wont have much killing to do. Hardware support is the main reason why people refuse to switch.

Linux will never be compatible with Windows drivers. If that happened, that means that we'd be using the Windows Kernel, ergo NOT Linux.

What you probably meant to say is that there won't be much killing to do until there are feasible and readily available Linux drivers for consumer desktop hardware.

On that note, in broader terms, Linux has so much more hardware support than Windows that it isn't even funny. Linux runs on everything from cellphones to cars to microwaves. Windows runs only on desktop, laptop and server computers, and a few brands of smartphones and PDAs.

[deadbeatdrum]

Windows 7 - Linux Killer?

Windows Vista - Linux Killer?

Windows XP - Linux killer?

Need I go on?

I find it somewhat ironic that one of Windows 7's most eagerly and anticipated features is an "XP Mode". Even Windows 2000 had compatibility modes for previous versions of Windows.

Windows 7 - Windows XP killer? Now this would be a more interesting question to pose to the forum.

No matter how much the Microsoft propaganda machine proudly proclaims, Linux will always be here for those that wish to use it. This seems to stick in the craw of Microsoft and their faithful for some reason. Long may it continue.

[pookiebear]

No offense but did you read any of the reviews...everybody said basically windows 7 is the Vista with a new name and all the fixes that vista needed. Its still the same slow POS Microsoft came out with at first.

Its definitely better but no leap forward in quality. I will still happily stay here in Ubuntu...who wouldn't?

I have an xp box for one reason and one reason only...Quickbooks! I hope someday Inuit figures out how many people want Quickbooks on Linux and give us a good version. then life will be complete and windows can eat a big fat...well you know.

quickbooks will be web based shortly.
Quicken is almost there
microsoft converted MSmoney to a free web based app recently.

[pookiebear]

Because once a Linux system is up and running, it needs less support. No viruses crashing peoples system within the company that can't stay away from myspace for 8 hours. CPUs burn up slower because they aren't being overworked when using Linux. There are a lot of things that go wrong because of how MS works on a system.

You described 33% of my billing hours. I have been an IT technician for 17 years. Trend and Symantec are a joke. I should know, I sell them both as they are still better than anything else. I know freebie versions find stuff better, but I have to install this stuff in 1000 computer environments. I find that 3 button click enterprise install easier on trend than anything I can get for free, for the windows side anyways. But I have always felt the virus/malware thing was just a big joke being played on me. Bring back the DOS days for me. or I will stay with Linux at home. I would take DOS and word perfect 5.1 anyday. At least it was fast. DOS booted in about .00003 seconds for me on my 486. Doom was 1.2mb and ran fine and fast too even over tcpip from the network stack from NOVELL. Anything above that is just FLUFF that makes it slow. The only thing I see worthwhile is the encryption on packets. That was a good thing but it has been hacked 100 times over too so why bother?

[Spencer Caplan]

I agree with the general sentiment, Windows 7 is not going to hurt Linux. It may hurt Windows XP, but Linux has a string niche and I do not know anybody who uses Linux who would then pay for Windows to switch. I think that the more interesting situation is how the Chrome OS is going to effect Linux.

[flux_user]

no

the people that use linux use it for a reason and wont care

</thread>

My sentiments exactly! People who like windows will use windows people who use Linux will continue to use Linux. Some people switch camps (windows to Linux and Linux to windows); it doesn't matter. Linux and windows will continue on their own paths.

Funny thought; spell check in Firefox capitalises Linux and leaves windows lower case; because windows isn't (a) proper (noun). Guess windows isn't proper. lol... Just noticed it and thought it was funny.

[Chronon]

If I wanted an OS that worked just like windows.... wouldn't I just use Windows?

If you put any stock in free software then that may be a reason to choose one over the other (other things being equal).

[sn0m]

Windows 7 linux killer-yea horseshoe from wintoss propaganda machine.
The only way for wintoss to ever dream about killing linux would be to open up their source code.....

[JDorfler]

Linux Killer, I think not.

Most folks, such as myself, that use Linux use it b/c they love it and are tired of all the MSFT BS. Do not get me wrong. I use Vista as part of my multi-boot, but it's for games. I would never use it for any kind of work or websurfing. I own a Zune, which I love more than anything from Apple. I do have an XBox 360, and I love it to death as well. However, these are toys. As someone who has a lot riding on his data and communications, I just can't rely on a Windows OS for any kind of security or reliability.

If Win 7 was to be the Linux killer, I would be willing to bet it would be another Linux Distro.

What would be a better question and hot topic of debate is, will MSFT Office 2010 be the OpenOffice.org killer? The answer to that would be, Will Office 2010 be under 200 Mb and use 1/10th the memory as previous versions? Oh wait, I suppose this wouldn't be a better question or a hot topic at all.

[Giant Speck]

Windows 7 linux killer-yea horseshoe from wintoss propaganda machine.
The only way for wintoss to ever dream about killing linux would be to open up their source code.....

Wintoss? What in the hell does that mean?

[philcamlin]

Wintoss? What in the hell does that mean?

you toss windows out the window? :popcorn:

[GepettoBR]

you toss windows out the window? :popcorn:

Maybe they should change the name, then.

Defenestrate Vista.

Yeah, I can totally relate to that. :lolflag:

[mdsmedia]

I must admit that I spent the first dollar I have spent on Windows in years, today.

I used to subscribe to APC Magazine (Australian Personal Computer), which I continued to subscribe to because it has a software DVD which usually included a Linux distro or 2. For whatever reason, my subscription lapsed and I didn't renew it.

Today, I was in the local newsagent and browsing the magazines and saw the latest APC mag. It included its DVD, with Vista SP2 and Windows 7 RC. I had considered downloading the RC and having a look at it, but never got around to it. I spent AUD$9.95, partly because of the SP2, but mainly because of Win 7 RC. $10 for Windows 7? Probably not worth it, but I'll have a look at it.

[mystmaiden]

no matter how good a new windows release may sound I just keep going back to one thing, windows is too vulnerable to every ugly nasty virus that comes around.

never again.

myst

[mdsmedia]

I have to say, no matter what I think of Windows 7 RC, it won't be replacing Linux as my main OS. I have to use Windows, but for 99% of my computing, Linux is my choice and main OS, regardless of what I think of Windows 7.

I've only recently experienced Vista to any extent, and in some ways it's better than XP, but more and more, the OS gets in the way.

[isotonik]

Windows 7 - Linux Killer?


Pure scaremongering on your part.

[GepettoBR]

Pure scaremongering on your part.

Notice the question mark? Were it an exclamation, I'd agree with you.

[kamolt]

I switched to Linux some time ago and will not go back to windows. Although I am a very happy Ubuntu user the lack of a decent video editor like Adobe and the pain to get VDPAU to work (I never succeeded) are negatives for me. I hate to say it but in Windows things are working almost instantly. Linux is missing commercial software apps I would be glad to pay for it.

[StephanG]

First off, I have to say that I'm a die hard linux fan. I'll probably never switch. Especially if KDE continues to improve at the rate its been improving at since 4.0's release.

That being said. My brother installed Windows 7 RC. While I have to agree that some features are stolen from Mac and Linux, in general it seems light years ahead of Vista. Its a lot faster and provides a pretty decent user experience.

While I don't think it will steal people away from Linux. I do think that a lot of people will remain with windows, simply because its fast. It does more or less what you want it to, and any app you may need will work on it.

And I know a lot of people that would love to switch to Linux, but can't simply because they need ridiculously expensive software to do their jobs that only works on Windows.

(I know there are great alternatives, but I really don't think its my place to tell a professional to abandon the software his entire company has been using since university. Especially not if I can't guarantee that the linux version alternative can do 100% of what their product can.)

[stanca]

With so many Linux distros,desktop environments,window managers,full customization and editing,etc,etc';how can I go back to any Window$ anymore?
I really don't have the time.;):lolflag:

[deadbeatdrum]

I have installed most of the build versions of Windows 7 made available to the public via the Internet, and some that are not (friends being what they are). Although Linux is my main operating system I still keep a spare NTFS partition around just to satisfy my itch.

I read the reviews about Windows 7, I download (or are given) Windows 7 betas and RCs. I can not see what all the fuss is about, honestly.

Windows 7 seems to boot a little faster, shuts down around the same, FPS in games is within 2 or 3 compared to Vista with available drivers (Ballmer said all drivers that worked with Vista should work with 7).

What I want to know is have I missed anything? If you paid for Vista, why would you go out and purchase 7. Would you not feel a little short-changed?

LOL

This window is still open, I thought I'd closed it. Went away and watched an episode of House MD. I'll commit it anyway.

[spaceboy909]

I would like to try Win7, but you can bet I won't be paying for it unless games start requiring it.

I have been desperately in love with the idea of Linux/OSS since I made my first purchase of Red Hat 5.2 back in 1999 at Sam's Club, but troubles with that distro as well as others I have sampled off and on over the years have continually forced me back to Windows.

Since mid 2007, I have had my longest dual boot run with Linux: Ubuntu. But once again, lots of potential, and too many headaches have forced me to spend at least half of my time in Windows still.

So many people are desperate for a change, but Linux is just not ready yet. Some people may blame marketing and awareness for the current user stats, but I disagree for the most part. Bottom line: When there is a hot new technology on the market that is quality and easy to use.........marketing only sparks the fire. These days, the good news spreads like wildfire and within a week or two, 'everybody's got one'. You can pick any example you like out of the daily tech news.

So after 10 years of tinkering with Linux, and still pulling my hair out.....I know it's not a marketing issue. Linux just isn't ready for most people.

For example, if I hadn't run into 7 to 10 brand new problems with Ubuntu in the last couple of weeks, I wouldn't be a click away from replacing it with Mandriva, which is where I'm at now.

I have positive memories of Mandrake in the past, so hopefully Mandriva will allow me to stay with Linux, but Ubuntu has forced me to join the 'Hair Club For Men', and that's just too far. :(


If Windows 7 is more like XP on resources, then that will slow Linux's growth. XP is really great on resources, but my experience with Ubuntu is just the opposite; quite poor, and I'm sure you're all of aware of the debates in the community regarding how the kernel team may be catering to enterprise and sacrificing desktop performance as a result. Honestly, with an open source kernel, is there any excuse for Linux to not perform as well as XP.....?

Any new Windows product that functions half way decent will slow Linux's growth, but then, the growth of the Linux desktop is ultimately not controlled by MS. It's up to the Linux community, to bring a fully functional, practical, easy to use and high performance desktop to the end users. When that happens, Linux will spread just as fast as Twitter and IPhones!

[Dullstar]

Explain those testimonials about Ubuntu saving an old computer.

[spaceboy909]

Explain those testimonials about Ubuntu saving an old computer.
I assume this is in response to my statement about resource issues?

Sure, Linux can run on older boxes. I ran Ubuntu on a 600MHz and it ran 'ok', but that was very light duty use. Slimmed down versions I'm sure run better, but older 'salvaged' systems are probably intended as light and casual use anyway.

But it still has undeniable resource issues. Of course, if it doesn't manifest in a visible way on a given computer, then the user is unlikely to complain about it. If the CPU sits at 99% all the time, and the user does not experience any problems, is it a 'real' problem? I would consider it a problem just on power consumption and heat, but the average joe might not ever notice.

I first picked up on resource issues via general sluggishness, which prompted me to open system monitor, which, btw, uses about 3 times the CPU power as Windows' monitor does.

Then I started having audio stutters. My experience in regards to resources has shown me that Linux uses anywhere from double to triple the CPU for a given set of tasks!

[mdsmedia]

I assume this is in response to my statement about resource issues?

Sure, Linux can run on older boxes. I ran Ubuntu on a 600MHz and it ran 'ok', but that was very light duty use. Slimmed down versions I'm sure run better, but older 'salvaged' systems are probably intended as light and casual use anyway.

But it still has undeniable resource issues. Of course, if it doesn't manifest in a visible way on a given computer, then the user is unlikely to complain about it. If the CPU sits at 99% all the time, and the user does not experience any problems, is it a 'real' problem? I would consider it a problem just on power consumption and heat, but the average joe might not ever notice.

I first picked up on resource issues via general sluggishness, which prompted me to open system monitor, which, btw, uses about 3 times the CPU power as Windows' monitor does.

Then I started having audio stutters. My experience in regards to resources has shown me that Linux uses anywhere from double to triple the CPU for a given set of tasks!
If you've read my story, which I've repeated many times, you'll know that I found Ubuntu BECAUSE XP was extremely sluggish on a 6 month old laptop.

I loaded the LiveCD and spent 3 hours in xchat, remarking at how fast the LiveCD was!!

I installed Ubuntu and it immediately became my main OS, for 95% of my computing, because it was so much more pleasant than XP. That was 5.04 (in October 05) and I didn't upgrade until well after 6.06 had been released, so let's call it 12 months. In that time, system slowdown was negligible. Note....I upgraded to 6.06, i didn't clean install. I then upgraded (yes...upgraded) to 8.04 a fair while after it was released. A new lease of life, from an upgrade!

I'm not saying that everyone's experience will be the same, but for resource consumption/efficiency, sorry but Ubuntu has beaten XP hands down for me.

[CaesarLike]

For what its worth, I find Ubuntu 9.04 the fastest version in the 2.5 years I have been using it. Currently I have Ubuntu as my main OS, with XP as both a dual boot and as a VM in VirtualBox. While I still use windows for some things I much prefer Ubuntu for its speed and (mostly) ease of use. I have tried both the 32 & 64 bit RC's of Win 7. I find that to run all my 32 bit apps I actually need both Win 7 versions as neither by themselves will run them all. When I first tried Win 7 I was quite impressed, until I realised it is just another MS OS with all their short commings and vunerabilities. And at around AU$500.00 for the top end version, it is not value for money to me. That and the fact that I am very tired of the MS windows world. For now I will stick to linux as main OS and Win as support OS. And I know other average users who will do the same.

[spaceboy909]

Mdsmedia and CaeserLike:

I wish I could have had similar experiences. Before I switch to Mandriva, I'll upgrade to JJ on my desktop and try it out, but resources/speed is only one of my problems, so I'll probably still switch.

One of the many downsides of Windows is that once it gets 'infested' with performance robbing crudware, it's almost impossible to return to normal without a reinstall, and laptops are always worse, imo. And sometimes the culprits are built in via the OEM!

[wolfdale]

As long as Windows cost money, it will never be a treat to Linux.

[murderslastcrow]

Wow, Windows 7 comes with DockbarX and GnoMenu preinstalled? I might as well shell out hundreds of dollars!

Really, if you're already using Linux, Microsoft has nothing to offer to Linux users over what they already have. Windows can't even properly run Linux programs? Heinous. XD

In other words, if you insist on using Windows, get Windows 7. It's not too bad (or too great). But if you have fairly shallow needs from your computer (portable media player management, internet surfing, media playing, Office applications), you really should be using Linux anyway. You don't have to use it just because it's fast, stable, safe, intuitive, innovative, etc.

Many people use it just because it does all the stuff they need, plus it's free. Same reason people used Windows at first- did the same stuff, but it was cheap back in the Windows 95 days.

[running_rabbit07]

Many people use it just because it does all the stuff they need, plus it's free. Same reason people used Windows at first- did the same stuff, but it was cheap back in the Windows 95 days.

You can get Windows 7 Pro for free, too. I did. Just go to school and throw in a CIT class and you will have the school's MSDNaa benefits. Double positive. You learn something and get all the high dollar software for free.

I actually use the MSDN for what it was made for. For using as an educational tool. I can't learn to fix Windows 7 if I don't have access to it. I love Linux and will always use it as my primary OS.