Windows 7 is OUR child

[beloved88]

Ok, so by us, I'm referring to all Unix-like OS users.
I firmly believe that Windows 7 is our doing. Sure, it was the developers on Gate's payroll that put it together, but they only did so because of us. As of recent, Microsoft has been loosing a ton of ground to Unix-like OS's like OS-X, Linux, FreeBSD, and the multitude of smartphone linuxOS distros. We're fast, reliable, secure, and not monopolistic and evil like Bill Gates is. Without this kind of competition, Windows 7 would have never come to be, and Gate's would be selling crappier stuff for an even high pricetag. Think about the netbook market. In the first few months over 80% of netbooks were shipped with a Linux OS, because Win Vista was just too impractical for a net book. Microsoft reacted by offering XP to OEMs for just 25$, and now 7 starter for a highly discounted rate on netbooks as well. This is not Microsoft's victory, they would much rather produce expensive crap than cheaper ok stuff because they are monopolistic deamons, it's our victory!

Any thoughts?

[Sef]

moved to recurring discussions.

[Diluted]

I firmly believe that Windows 7 is our doing. Sure, it was the developers on Gate's payroll that put it together, but they only did so because of us.

It's more like the reception of Vista which forced Microsoft to do better with their next operating system.

As of recent, Microsoft has been loosing a ton of ground to Unix-like OS's like OS-X, Linux, FreeBSD, and the multitude of smartphone linuxOS distros.

What sources do you have for this development? I don't see Microsoft losing ton of ground to someone else, not in a noticeable quantity anyway.

We're fast, reliable, secure, and not monopolistic and evil like Bill Gates is. Without this kind of competition, Windows 7 would have never come to be,

That really depends on what kind of competition you're talking about. I think Apple is a bigger competitor to Windows than Linux, given its market share.

and Gate's would be selling crappier stuff for an even high pricetag.

Given a sufficiently high price, Windows (and newer PCs) would not sell as much. It is in Microsoft's interest to maximize revenue, not to get more profit from each sale.

Think about the netbook market. In the first few months over 80% of netbooks were shipped with a Linux OS, because Win Vista was just too impractical for a net book. Microsoft reacted by offering XP to OEMs for just 25$, and now 7 starter for a highly discounted rate on netbooks as well.

Have you ever considered that the manufacturers only used Linux as a bargaining tool? They got what they wanted, and that is cheap XP licenses. I don't believe they genuinely cared about Linux being an alternative.

This is not Microsoft's victory, they would much rather produce expensive crap than cheaper ok stuff because they are monopolistic deamons, it's our victory!

Again, it would not be in the best interests of Microsoft to charge software for too much. Cheap XP and 7 licenses on netbooks is merely an icing on the cake for Microsoft. They can continue to squeeze more money out of the aging XP. 7 Starter is limited to prevent cutting into the sale of higher versions and they can earn more when owners decide to upgrade to higher versions.

Any thoughts?

I think this "Windows 7 is our child" is starting to look a little desperate.

[Ylon]

Windows Vista was so infamous to the public that people (commonly) consider "Vista PC = PC not working". So gave the choice to step back (XP) or "go ahead" they (the people) made the thing that looks better: go ahead.



Seven is still no good/stable and fast as XP (plus it hadn't the HUGE library of driver made/fixed by hardware companies): people just "fix" their problem with Vista.



Is a "success" that I, more than gladly, return to MS.

[megamania]

As of recent, Microsoft has been loosing a ton of ground to Unix-like OS's like OS-X, Linux, FreeBSD,

They only lost sales (i.e. potential turnover) because lots of people didn't buy a Vista upgrade.

They didn't lose significant market share, because most people simply kept using XP.

[rudihawk]

They only lost sales (i.e. potential turnover) because lots of people didn't buy a Vista upgrade.

They didn't lose significant market share, because most people simply kept using XP.

+1

Case in point, when my mom got a new laptop, she stuck with XP. Still Microsoft retains their market share - they just didn't get it with Vista.

[zagz]

Win7 was released so soon beacause the business sector would'nt touch Vista

[sydbat]

moved to recurring discussions.

Best. Answer. Ever.

[Tipped OuT]

Seven is still no good/stable and fast as XP (plus it hadn't the HUGE library of driver made/fixed by hardware companies): people just "fix" their problem with Vista.

Windows 7 will never be as "fast" (it's not fast, just light weighted) as Windows XP. It's a 10 year old operating system, of coarse it will be lighter then Windows 7. Common sense. If you knew anything about Windows Vista or 7, you would know they have more useful services running in the background then Windows XP.

Good/stable? Well being "good" is basely made off of an opinion, but being stable, that's a different matter.

Windows 7 is as stable, if not more, as Windows XP. Do some research if you'd like.

I do not even know what you mean by, "plus it hadn't the HUGE library of driver made/fixed by hardware companies". Clarifying would be a greatly appreciated.

My conclusion is, you haven't really tried Windows 7 and if you have, it was probably one of the BETA's and/or it wasn't for very long.

[PariahVayne]

x