Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Windows 7 Trumps Vista By Reaching 20% Share

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the seven-of-one,-half-dozen-of-the-other dept.

Windows 404

CWmike writes "Windows 7 cracked the 20% share mark last month, a milestone the problem-plagued Vista never reached, Web measurement vendor Net Application said over the weekend. Gregg Keizer reports that Windows 7's online usage share reached 20.9% in December, up 1.2 percentage points from the month before. Windows Vista, meanwhile, fell by half a point to 12.1%, its lowest share since July 2008. Vista peaked at 18.8% in October 2009, the same month that Microsoft launched Windows 7. The other standout finding: XP is projected to still account for 13% when it's retired in 2014." An anonymous reader adds news that Google's Chrome browser is nearing 10% market share.

cancel ×

404 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Windows 7 (5, Interesting)

devxo (1963088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749348)

I'm not surprised, Windows 7 is actually rock solid OS. Everything is done perfectly and feels good. Vista itself wasn't bad, but drivers for it weren't ready. It was the necessary to move from XP.

It's hard to think how Microsoft can make the next Windows better from Windows 7.

Re:Windows 7 (4, Insightful)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749382)

I'm still having a hard time understanding what technologies exist in 7 that don't in XP AND are something I ( or a business would need ).

The only reason to upgrade from XP is because security updates are due to end soon. And while that's a valid reason, most businesses are going to be asking themselves why they should upgrade if that's the only reason.

Re:Windows 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34749400)

good question? i mean some stuff drivers and flash etc is not supported but dosent mean it could not be made companies simply build it for the new OS

Re:Windows 7 (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749490)

>>good question? i mean some stuff drivers and flash etc is not supported but dosent mean it could not be made companies simply build it for the new OS

Contrawise, there's also a lot of devices not supported (or supported well) by Win7.

If you have a building full of XP machines, then you know your hardware is supported by XP, but you don't know if it's supported by Win7. The upgrade advisor helps with this, but is not perfect by any means. My gym upgraded, for example, and their receipt printer stopped working. So we got 8x11 receipts for a while until they'd bought some piece of hardware that they could retrofit the receipt printer with to make it compatible.

In other words, it's really not worth the bother to upgrade, for people or for businesses. I've often said that I'd upgrade from XP to Win7 once they get a file browser and start menu that works as cleanly as XP's, but in reality I'm sticking with XP on my home machine (built in Dec 2004) until it dies. Win7 won't do an upgrade on a XP system with RAID, it seems.

Re:Windows 7 (5, Informative)

damnbunni (1215350) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749576)

Windows 7 won't do an upgrade on an XP system, period. You have to do a clean install.

If you really, really want to upgrade from XP to 7 you need to upgrade from XP to Vista, then Vista to 7.

Re:Windows 7 (5, Insightful)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749614)

The start/all-programs menu for Win7 is vastly superior to XP, as is Windows Explorer. Have you actually sat down and tried to use them as they're meant to be used? Or have you tried to use them as if you were still using XP?

For example, I almost never use the "All programs" menu any more. No need. Everything I want or need is either on the task bar (pinned there) or on the start menu (pinned there or in the 'recently used' section), or available with just a few keystrokes typed in the search box.

I find I'm far more productive with Win7 than I ever was with XP. Going back to XP just gives me this feeling of XP constantly getting in the way... I feel utterly constrained by its limitations and annoyances. Windows 7 is a definit advance, and is definitely worth the upgrade.

I "upgraded" my XP laptop a while back (after using it at work for a while), and even though it's not a true 'upgrade', it was one of the most painless windows installs I've ever experienced (and I've done a LOT of them). Yeah, I had to reinstall my apps, but the data moved over pretty painlessly. I was up and running in under a day, easily.

I'm not sure what you even mean by the XP start menu working more "cleanly" than Win7's... the exact opposite is the case. The Win7 start menu is just vastly superior. Of course, you have to take the time to actually learn this fact.

Re:Windows 7 (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749678)

The start/all-programs menu for Win7 is vastly superior to XP

I tend to agree, except when it just plain doesnt work, or when I install a new program-- and then typing 'calc' pegs the disk as OpenOffice loads, rather than the calculator app. Or when you want to open the command prompt with "cmd", but the system sees youve written a script somewhere on your computer with a .cmd extension, and assumes you want to use that. Good it may be in some scenarios, but its not a hands-down improvement.

Regardless, the GUI stuff can to some extent be tacked on-- there may have been work done to bring GPU acceleration to the desktop (why again?) which XP cannot replicate, but the start menu? Please. Launchy handles that sort of thing if you really want it anyways.

Re:Windows 7 (2)

ilovejesusontoast (1276736) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749726)

Use windows key + R to bring up the run dialog then type calc.

Re:Windows 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34749774)

And this is different from XP how exactly?

Re:Windows 7 (1)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749834)

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're even talking about. I haven't experieenced anything like what you're describing (and can't even really follow what you're talking about)... are you talking about just blind-typing really fast into the start menu search bar and pressing enter without even looking?

I use *.cmd files all over the place, but typing 'cmd' never fails to bring up the command prompt as the first thing for me. But then I just have it pinned to my start menu, so a Win+7 brings it up, no muss, no fuss. And all my most-used things are right there in the start menu (those that aren't pinned to the task bar), and the hover-over menu of most recently used documents is also a vast improvement as well.

Re:Windows 7 (5, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749916)

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're even talking about. I haven't experieenced anything like what you're describing (and can't even really follow what you're talking about)... are you talking about just blind-typing really fast into the start menu search bar and pressing enter without even looking?

Essentially, yes, thats what he's talking about.

Lots of machines have that Windows Menu key now days.
Whack that, (or click the start icon)
Cursor is already in the search box.

At that point, if you know the name of the application, a fast typist, or a keyboard oriented user can launch just about anything faster than a mouse user drilling thru the start-bar.

 

Re:Windows 7 (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749862)

Don't be so stingy. Type that extra character "u" and you get one hit. calcu. enter. done.

Re:Windows 7 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34749798)

Your full of it, a MVP lackey, or being sarcastic.

What do you have maybe 10 applications? 20? 30?
For thirty, fifty programs yeah the win 7 start menu is acceptable.
However, If you can fit everything on your taskbar, You are not producing anything. You might as well have an iPad.

Try 1000. try 2000, try 3000 apps Now lets see your *****ng win 7 start menu
Lets see you install plug-ins for 6 months.

Win 7 won't even install/run many programs. Even retarded ones.
Mah Jongg for windows v 1.0 ? No. won't run. From win 95 - 98 - XP program ran, simply copy it's directory over and make a link to it.
Win7 nope. Speaking of copying dir's I know you love access denied even though your root (I mean admin). Damn those symbolic links.

Win 7 still missing drivers for many hardware. Lexicon for example.

Wanna talk about the audio API and VS 2010?

I actually get LESS WORK done on win 7

Go ahead and live in self delusion, maybe you should invest in Facebook, so the goldman sack can suck off your retirement.
After you clean the splooge splunking from your ass, and the gold man sack wipes e' dick off, and your filling out the police report for rape. I got a bridge for your consideration, a fire sale if your interested.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749870)

You don't describe in what way Win7's start menu is "worse" than XP's in the case of having many applications (seriously? 5000? Who does that?)

1) XP doesn't have instant search, so you either need to painstakingly micro-manage your All Programs list, manually organizing it, or you just have to search through everything to find what you want

2) Win7 DOES have an all-programs menu that you can use very similar to XP's... I just rarely need to

I do software development, and rarely have fewer than four instances of Visual Studio open at one time, or fewer than two dozen applications running at once (well, two dozen windows). It's much easier to find and manage my windows, and my most used applications and documents with Win7... I especailly like using the Windows Explorer "Favorites" node to tuck some of my most-used, deeply-nested folders, for one-click access, and to make handy drop-targets for drag-and-drop file moves/copies.

And I have yet to run into an application that won't run at all (I've had to set the compatibility setting in properties for some of them, but they do run). My hardware is hardly brand new, but everything runs flawlessly.

So no, I'm not delusional at all.

Re:Windows 7 (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749928)

Really? 3000 apps?

You know, not every porn shot is considered an App.

Re:Windows 7 (2, Informative)

beav007 (746004) | more than 3 years ago | (#34750078)

I've often said that I'd upgrade from XP to Win7 once they get a file browser and start menu that works as cleanly as XP's

Classic Shell [sourceforge.net] helps to fix those issues.

Re:Windows 7 (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34749422)

I'm still having a hard time understanding what technologies exist in 7 that don't in XP AND are something I ( or a business would need ).

I still feel that way about XP and Windows 2000. Welcome to the upgrade treadmill. You got on it by choice, now upgrade.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749654)

I still feel that way about XP and Windows 2000. Welcome to the upgrade treadmill.

Don't blame me, I'm still using System 6 on my Mac.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749876)

Viruses aside, System 8 is pretty decent, though 6 is black and white, and stretching your sanity ;).

Even if Windows admins worldwide could suddenly enjoy security-through-small-marketshare status, they would hit the hidden brickwall of Web 1.5 to Web 2.0. You and non-geek home users stuck with 15-year-old PCs at home just realize their computer is a filing cabinet with marginal use

Hotmail and Yahoo are daily sites you would need, but they use underhanded "comment tags that by recent convention really should execute" scripts ... back 7 years, all I could do on the 266Mhz Mac was use iCab 2, since FF required OS 9 and wouldn't be born for another few years... IE got forever stuck on 5 and pre-carbon Netscape sucked on JS speed and functionality. This is the real reason home users upgrade nowadays --speed problems and broken compatibility with website standards. Nobody even sees a first generation cellphone browser seriously. One day IE6 and IE7 will be so broken that XP will reek of inadecuacy and decade-old PC's will get binned for Windows 8 desktops so they can enjoy HTML5+Web3.0

Re:Windows 7 (1, Informative)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749478)

Even the new task bar and Aero Snap alone give great productivity increases. It takes a while of getting used to them though.

The "libraries" feature can be useful too. For example if you have a large amount of music on your external hard drive, some on a network drive and some on your local disk, you can create a "library" which is basically a virtual folder which combines files from multiple sources. You can have as many as you like and they show up as folders in Windows Explorer and in file dialogs.

Then there are features in Vista that aren't in XP that are now worth looking at because 7 isn't slow like Vista is such as Windows Search and the DWM.

Basically, lots and lots of very small things. You might not care about them very much individually, but after switching it is annoying for me to go back and not be able to use these features.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749554)

None of which is hugely useful to the average office worker, who will be confused by quite a few of the new things, such as the change to how search works.

Re:Windows 7 (0)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749634)

Sorry, but that's really lame, short-sighted reasoning. Many of the features would be useful to average office workers, and the "confusion" is a very short-term thing. It's transient. It's not big enough to justify never upgrading, given all the other benefits (security, stability, easier to use, easier to support, etc, etc).

Re:Windows 7 (3)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749706)

Ive heard arguments like this for things like Sharepoint, and usually what it really means is that "we have a solution, we're just not sure what the problem is yet".

Re:Windows 7 (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749804)

Ive heard arguments like this for things like Sharepoint, and usually what it really means is that "we have a solution, we're just not sure what the problem is yet".

No, that was Lotus Notes.

Re:Windows 7 (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749698)

Windows search is a pig. Ive had to disable it for example in Outlook because it slows everything down, or just plain breaks search. Most of the small things you list can be tacked on after the fact if you want them. 7 is nice in a lot of ways, but theres not a lot that it does that XP couldnt do, and 3rd party apps tend to do those things far better.

Re:Windows 7 (4, Informative)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749482)

Time to read bud, there is a ton of info on it. Since Win 7 is basically Vista+, you have to start with the difference between XP and Vista. This is where the majority of changes occurred.

Read the following to fully understand the difference between 7 and XP, or cherry pick to get a basic idea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista [wikipedia.org] - stuff the end user will care about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_features_new_to_Windows_Vista [wikipedia.org] - stuff that actually makes it better
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_safety_features_new_to_Windows_Vista [wikipedia.org] - stuff your IT guys will care about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_features_new_to_Windows_Vista [wikipedia.org] - more stuff your IT guys will care about

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7 [wikipedia.org] - stuff the end user will care about, including the features that were removed since Vista

Re:Windows 7 (3, Funny)

increment1 (1722312) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749488)

I'm still having a hard time understanding what technologies exist in 7 that don't in XP AND are something I ( or a business would need )

Have you seen the transparent windows?

Re:Windows 7 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34749584)

Have you seen idiotic posts?

Re:Windows 7 (-1, Troll)

mcneely.mike (927221) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749644)

Have you ever seen this many posts with brown MS Ass marks all over them? Lick Ball(mer) much?

Re:Windows 7 (1)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749500)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_features_new_to_Windows_Vista [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_safety_features_new_to_Windows_Vista [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_features_new_to_Windows_Vista [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista_I/O_technologies [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista_networking_technologies [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7 [wikipedia.org]

Choose one you find useful. I'm sure you can create some sort of frakenstein XP OS which includes all these features, but I'm sure it won't perform as well. The particular features I find most useful in 7 is instant search, SSD support, UAC, integrated backup, GPU accelerated desktop, Aero snap and peek, and jump lists.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749668)

The particular features I find most useful in 7 is instant search, SSD support, UAC, integrated backup, GPU accelerated desktop, Aero snap and peek, and jump lists.

But...Steve Ballmer's a jerk!

Re:Windows 7 (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749892)

SSD support

XP supported SSDs; it does NOT support TRIM. There is a big difference.

UAC

XP has something similar, though, called RunAs-- several of my clients machines are set up so that if they attempt to install a program, a runas window pops up.

integrated backup

Ive personally found none of the integrated backups that windows has had to be terribly useful; but at least NTbackup supported tape, and individual file backup (rather than the all or nothing that 7 has)

GPU accelerated desktop

I dont know that its "Useful" persay, but granted that is something XP cannot have outside of someone rolling their own explorer replacement

snap and peek

There are window managers for XP which do those things, and as I understand it are better, though I have not used them. Personally I like snap, but it is only occasionally actually used, and it is rather clunky 50% of the time.

jumplists

Are nice, but again I dont know the last time I actually used one.

A lot of these things are theoretically nice, but changing how I use programs every 2 years doesnt strike me as a particularly good use of time. Vista and 7s mistake IMO was thinking that just because something looks good on paper, and in theory works if youve never used a computer before, theyre forcing office workers and professionals with years of experience on the same GUI dating back to Windows who-knows-what to fundamentally change how they do things-- and not always for the better.

I still need regular access to the Network Connections applet (ncpa.cpl), and its kind of obnoxious that they hid it behind about 5 clicks when it is the MOST useful applet for networking; Im sure I have many other such complaints but that was the biggest regarding their GUI house cleaning.

Re:Windows 7 (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749998)

I dont know that its "Useful" persay, but granted that is something XP cannot have outside of someone rolling their own explorer replacement

I'm always puzzled by people who talk about the glories of 'GPU-accelerated rendering', because Windows has had GPU-accelerated rendering since at least version 3.0. XP desktops are GPU-accelerated unless you have a really shitty driver.

It doesn't have fancy compositing, but who needs it on a business computer?

Re:Windows 7 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34749968)

instant search - With an organized classic menu there is no searching for thousands of programs.
SSD support - Um Sata, CF.
UAC - a disabled plethora of crap which prevents programs from running correctly.
integrated backup - So much more secure than my Drive to Drive Clone. You embarrass me.
GPU accelerated desktop - Oh boy the DESKTOP! Hurray for the desktop, My desktop is accelerated, I can watch the paint dry. now for my next trick, GPU accelerated transitions and video effects.
Aero snap and peek, Snap can be had by other means, peek is a popup to make you clik on the wrong thing when your in a hurry.
Hows that Audio Mixer API working out for ya? Go ahead and Jump

Re:Windows 7 (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34749504)

Decent IPv6 support, decent x86_64 support..not to mention that XP was TERRIBLE at managing multiple cores/processors and memory. XP would prefer the page file over real memory for some reason, too. Also, if you've ever done OS imaging via RIS, WDS is worlds better.

Re:Windows 7 (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34749566)

not to mention that XP was TERRIBLE at managing multiple cores/processors and memory

I'm surprised how often this isn't mentioned. To extend, XP also has problems differentiating between an SMT core and an actual real core (important with all these i5s and i7s). Seen XP SP3 think its a good idea to put a double threaded job on "processor 0 and 1" with 2 and 3 empty. Problem is 0 and 1 was the same core, so effectively half the CPU was unused. Windows Vista and 7 don't make the same mistake - and thats part of the reason you on a SMT capable processor often see certain cores facing much higher workloads on average than others.

Re:Windows 7 (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749900)

decent IPv6 support

True, except that it occasionally needs to be completely disabled to get things to stop breaking, when it insists on trying to do IPv6 AAAA lookups on a domain network where no IPv6 configuration was done. There are several articles on this, and it is quite bothersome.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749546)

If you don't allow your users to have Admin access, the differences probably aren't that huge. There is Windows Defender and BitLocker, so it might save you a few bucks on drive encryption software and possibly antivirus, and Libraries might make their documents a little easier to find.

If you do allow Admin access, the security popups can be a significant improvement in security, as they warn you when system areas are being futzed with.

The company I work for is still on XP and quite happy with it, for now. We're in the final throes of getting rid of IE6, though.

Re:Windows 7 (-1, Troll)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749562)

For me, I'm just much more productive in Win7 than in XP. Win7 stays out of my way, doesn't nag me about things, has more short-cut keys for productivity, Windows Explorer has more power and features that make life easier and faster, Windows Search makes fumbling with the start and all programs menu a thing of the past, etc, etc.

In fact, I hate going back to XP, because I can't seem to find anything and it's like working with stone knives and bear skins. Honest, I just can't imagine not wanting to upgrade to Windows 7 (unless you have really old hardware with really limited memory and CPU speed).

Windows 7 "just works" in a way that XP never did. It took an HOUR to install a recent HP all-in-one photo printer on XP. Same install on Win7 took a minute or so. The OS is also just much more secure, from the foundations on up. Much more stable. Much easier to use, with new and useful features. Home networking is just a snap now. Plug-n-play actually works for pretty much everything. The 64-bit support is fully baked. I could go on and on and on...

It ain't perfect, of course, but it's heads and shoulders above XP. I just don't understand the reticence to upgrade, or the unwillingness to see the obvious value in doing so.

Drivers, drivers, drivers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34749594)

In the Digital Audio Workstation field, everyone would love to use XP, IF only there were enough 64 bit drivers and apps for everything used. As it is, they'd have to go with 32 bit XP drivers (and waste half of their CPU cycles), or use Vista64. Security is not in issue in the DAW field, because anyone with half a brain will not have their DAW connected to the internet. All updates will be made via sneakernet.

Re:Drivers, drivers, drivers. (3, Insightful)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749960)

Uh, what? Drivers aren't the bottleneck from DAWs that I've seen. It's that VST effects and other apps/plugins are 32-bit. Most DAW software has figured out how to bridge 32-bit VST to 64-bit now, though, by running a dummy 32-bit process to communicate with.

Re:Windows 7 (2)

painandgreed (692585) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749596)

I'm still having a hard time understanding what technologies exist in 7 that don't in XP AND are something I ( or a business would need ).

The reasons that we are is for 64 bit and ability to use more RAM. We're also in the medical imaging sector so both of those means that our programs can handle more images a lot faster. Also, it's getting to be a pain to support some newer hardware in WinXP as the base install disk doesn't have the drivers needed to boot some of it. Some companies simply aren't supplying drivers for their hardware for WinXP at all so backing down the OS is not really an option.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749630)

I really don't understand the claims that there are no improvements in Win 7 versus XP. I suspect they are only playing Minecraft.

Just a few that are top of mind for me:

A large base of 64-bit drivers; if a x86 driver exists, a 64-bit driver does too. Only needed if you want more than 4GB of RAM. What's that? No one will ever need more than 4GB of RAM? :P
SSD TRIM support.
A more usable taskbar.
Searchable start menu.
Usability improvements in native file explorer.
Stability improvements. A misbehaving app doesn't kill my entire system.

Re:Windows 7 (4, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749690)

I hear you. I'm still running windows ME. It's safer really. Few blackhats bother to check compatibility of their viruses or malware with older operating systems. Some rogue antivirus popped up a message saying "Scanning: You have... Windows ME? Shit, I wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole. Uninstalling..."

Re:Windows 7 (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749736)

For users, or administrators?

Here are a couple good reasons why a company employing IT types might want it:
* UAC, as well as the signfiicant improvements in whatever mechanisms are used to authenticate users. It's now not a huge pain in the ass for an 'administrator' (or someone with heightened ACL privileges) to actually work on a domain workstation that's been locked down. (In XP, "locked down" meant "not an Administrator". For many years it was all but impossible do much at all w/o such privileges and/or a headache.)
* Improved user interface. Yes, this helps a lot - it's more intuitive to many, and the ability to tell the user "just type what you want" and have it come up is incredible.
* Improved administration ability through AD/GP.
* Easier to roll an image and maintain them.
* Makes better use of the current low-end hardware than XP does (eg. XP is still a dog on a 3GHz machine with 2GB of RAM; W7 is reasonably snappy, even w/o Aero.)
* Native virtualization support (as a guest).
* Native virtualization support (as a host).
* A networking stack that's had a great many of the bugs worked out of it (to 'just work').
* A wireless stack which has had a great many of the bugs worked out (so it's usable now, in more than a 'single location connection', without fucking with it)
* Improved CIFS performance.
* Relatively sane default security policies, making it not a nightmare for the overworked IT guy who's security focused but manning entirely more non-homogeneous systems than is sane.
* Even with a slow disk, the user will not experience nearly as much thrashing and waiting as a result, due to the improved heuristics, or w/e they want to call them, governing VM.
* It manages windows better. It's easier to manage your own windows in XP, but for those out there that are confused or scared by new icons on their desktop, it's far superior.

On the other hand, here are some reasons to not upgrade (as opposed to moving wholesale with new hardware):
* most old hardware simply doesn't work. Video drivers? You need those? Good luck if it's not a DX10 card. Intel 9xx is out of luck, which means most stuff is going to have shit performance (even for the card).
* Disk storage requirements are significant, so the lower-end stuff might not be simply 'upgradable'.
* You won't be able to game on the older hardware without significant performance degradation (compared to XP).
* Your users won't need you as much for the trivial things which irritate you.
* You've got applications which explicitly need other archaic shit, like ERP integration software or something that needs IE6. (On new hardware, these are mitigated through emulation/XP Mode... or doing something novel and moving the archaic shit to application servers, allowing for systemic upgrades to continue.)

That said... why is security a bad reason to upgrade, exactly? The "old NT" architecture was not fixable; it had to be replaced/extended/whatever. We've known this for the better part of a decade.

There's also the (quite obvious) hardware support issue.

Re:Windows 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34750080)

You won't be able to game on the older hardware without significant performance degradation (compared to XP).

Let me call bullshit on this. I've run Left4Dead on both a 3.2 P4 and a quad core AMD (2.8ghz) and it runs just as good on the 3.2 P4 as it did on the AMD. And I ran it on the 3.2 with both XP and Win7 and there really wasn't any real difference. While I'm sure the benchmarks would show a difference but if you can't notice it from the aspect of someone playing the game than the difference is not significant.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

Mr_eX9 (800448) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749794)

I disagree--Windows 7 does a lot of good catching up to Mac OS and Linux in terms of keyboard shortcuts (Aero Snap alone is seriously worth $250 or more and is better than 3rd-party solutions,) multi-monitor management, and coherence of the different places that applications live. I can't wait till my workplace upgrades our machines to Win7 so I don't have to manually drag and resize windows anymore.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

LoudNoiseElitist (1016584) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749844)

Solid 64-bit support would be one reason.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

Radhruin (875377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749898)

I'm not a windows expert by any means (mostly use Linux) but I use Windows at work...
  • Productivity. The new start menu is worth the upgrade cost alone. The task bar is also a huge improvement (although I tend to use full application names instead of the default icon only). I can't live without Aero Snap anymore.
  • Security. Not running everything as admin actually works well. Lots of new security features, some of which IE takes advantage of (you'll notice that many 0-day exploits are defeated by IE8 running in protected mode, which I don't believe works on XP).
  • Management. I think many AD features require windows vista or higher. You might find some of this useful.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

chrismcb (983081) | more than 3 years ago | (#34750054)

To me the biggest feature is 64 bit support. As applications become bigger memory hogs, more memory is important. 32 bit XP maxed out at 3G. I am sure Win7 has many other fine features. But got 64 bit support, and the ability to use more the 3G of memory is a good reason to upgrade.

Re:Windows 7 (2)

Mr_eX9 (800448) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749392)

Mac OS-style upgrades that are less expensive and focus on features over infrastructure (at least from a user perspective) would be pretty neat. And it would ensure that we don't have to wait 5 years between releases (or 7 years between viable releases) again.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

lowlymarine (1172723) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749618)

Why would you want upgrades that focus on features over infrastructure? Features are essentially fluff and can be supplemented by applications; core infrastructure is critical to the performance and stability of the system. It sounds like you're trying to suggest that "form over function" is a good thing in core OS design, which is hogwash.

OS X upgrades aren't generally cheaper, either; Leopard was the same price as Vista ($129) and Tiger, Panther, and Jaguar all cost $129 each where XP got free service packs. Snow Leopard was a special case because it was little more than a service pack - the fact that Apple still felt they should charge $29 for it is pretty telling. That, of course, is all before we get into the massive premium you pay for the hardware in the first place.

Re:Windows 7 (5, Insightful)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749748)

XP's Service Packs were the equivalent of Mac OS's upgrades, but they were free. The most notable upgrade was Service Pack 2, which introduced the firewall, pop-up blocker, Bluetooth support, Windows Security Center, etc. Sure, it is not a patch on the monumental changes introduced with Vista, but when people say that XP did everything that they needed they actually should say that XP SP2 did all they need. If you gave someone a computer with the original version of the OS then they wouldn't be so happy.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

pwizard2 (920421) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749404)

I'm normally a devout Linux user, but I can set my biases aside enough to admit that Microsoft did a good job with Windows 7. Of course, Vista could have been much better than it was if its codebase hadn't deteriorated so much during its insanely long development cycle.

Re:Windows 7 (2, Informative)

guruevi (827432) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749608)

I'm a devout Linux/Mac user that has to support Windows 7 for a living. I can say that it's a dog.
- It doesn't work all that well on low-end hardware or virtual machines
- Every time you deploy an image you have to manually re-register the thing with Microsoft so it doesn't disable itself
- Still no decent backup system
- XP Mode is buggy and compatibility in general is bad (especially in the 64-bit versions)
- Still no EXT3/EXT4 (or any Unix-type), Large FAT or GPT support
- Limit of 2 physical processors? Really? It's easy to get 4 processors in a box these days with 8 cores each especially in the academic world
- Full Disk Encryption requires TPM chips which are missing in just about any system these days so you still have to go into a 3rd party solution.
- You still have to download a virus scanner, there is none built-in nor is the OS self-contained enough to be used without one.

Re:Windows 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34749646)

If you buy a machine with more than 2 physical processors, you can buy a special Windows license that will let you use all of them...or you can use one of the Server OS offerings. MOST decent laptops these days have TPM chips and have for years. My Turion X2 laptop had a TPM chip. There isn't NTFS write support built in to OSX, so it isn't perfect in regard to file systems.. Windows 7 comes with a backup utility that is extremely easy to use and to set up schedules with. You don't have to register the image with Microsoft if you know what you're doing (read as using KMS). Of course Windows 7 doesn't run well on a computer from 2003. Modern OSX doesn't either. If you don't like XP mode, use VirtualBox or VMware Player. Google harder next time.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749664)

You still have to download a virus scanner, there is none built-in nor is the OS self-contained enough to be used without one.

The DOJ made sure it wouldn't come with one bundled. Installing MSE is free, easy, and it works well.

Re:Windows 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34749670)

I was going to address the many errors in your "points," but then I noticed the "/Mac user" part and realized you're probably just beyond help.

Re:Windows 7 (2, Informative)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749694)

Almost nothing you cited is actually true. There's no 2 physical limit on processors (for the Professional and higher versions)... heck, I'm using Win7 on a 4 year old box with 4 procesors (dual CPU with hyper-threading for 4 "virtual" processors). We also use virtual machines all over the place and it works quite well... with no need to constantly 'register' them. And yeah, you have to download "Microsoft Security Essentials" separately, thanks to wanting to avoid issues with the DOJ and law-suit happy McAffee and Norton... not exactly Win7's or Microsoft's fault there. So basically all your rationalizations and justifications for why Win7 is a dog are complete bunk. Sorry.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34750056)

dual CPU with hyper-threading for 4 "virtual" processors

What part of physical did you fail to understand? What parent said is right: http://www.winsupersite.com/article/win7/windows-7-product-editions-a-comparison.aspx#performance [winsupersite.com]

Re:Windows 7 (2)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 3 years ago | (#34750088)

So... if unlimited cores and two physical processors isn't enough for you, then why aren't you using Windows Server 2008 R2?

Please. This is an utterly ridiculous complaint.

Re:Windows 7 (0)

mcneely.mike (927221) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749702)

I'm a devout Linux/Mac user that has to support Windows 7 for a living. I can say that it's a dog. - It doesn't work all that well on low-end hardware or virtual machines - Every time you deploy an image you have to manually re-register the thing with Microsoft so it doesn't disable itself - Still no decent backup system - XP Mode is buggy and compatibility in general is bad (especially in the 64-bit versions) - Still no EXT3/EXT4 (or any Unix-type), Large FAT or GPT support - Limit of 2 physical processors? Really? It's easy to get 4 processors in a box these days with 8 cores each especially in the academic world - Full Disk Encryption requires TPM chips which are missing in just about any system these days so you still have to go into a 3rd party solution. - You still have to download a virus scanner, there is none built-in nor is the OS self-contained enough to be used without one.

Really? You kid me not? Limit of 2 processors and no full disk encryption??????
Yes, i use linux too and now i have even more reason to laugh at windows users. (But, i guess all windows is useful for is playing games, so what do you expect.)

Re:Windows 7 (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749930)

you still have to download a virus scanner

Including a virus scanner with windows would a terrible idea. If you have a virus scanner monoculture, every virus will know how to bypass said scanner.

Re:Windows 7 (5, Informative)

bertok (226922) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749938)

It doesn't work all that well on low-end hardware or virtual machines

It's been demonstrated to match XP performance on even quite low-end gear by several third-party tests. My experience is that's it's faster, particularly the 64-bit builds, which increase the file cache size from ~400MB max to "all of physical memory", which is a big improvement.

Every time you deploy an image you have to manually re-register the thing with Microsoft so it doesn't disable itself

You're Doing It Wrong. If you're supporting Windows 7 for businesses, you should be using KMS or MAK, and using the volume licensed Enterprise editions, not Windows 7 Home or whatever.

Still no decent backup system

It's the best ever - it has both file-level and image-based backups, it can take live snapshots of disks for both types, back up open files, it has a built-in scheduler, and a bunch of other features.

The VHD disk images created by Windows 7 can be mounted as virtual disks using a GUI or the command-line, can be used to boot from directly without having to be restored first, can be trivially converted into a virtual machine disk, and the install CD has a built-in restore wizard.

I haven't seen comparable features in any other operating system except OSX.

More importantly, if you're backing up desktops, You're Doing It Wrong. Laptops should use offline folders to sync with the master copy of the user data on a server, and shouldn't need backing up. Desktops should use folder redirection and/or roaming profiles. Back up your servers, not your desktops.

You can even do it the "Linux way" if you want to: I've seen sample scripts floating about that take a VSS snapshot of a disk, mount it as a folder or drive letter, and use rsync to incrementally update a backup, then release the snapshot automatically. I've done this myself for Windows Server 2003, about 6 years ago, it's nothing new.

XP Mode is buggy and compatibility in general is bad (especially in the 64-bit versions)

You shouldn't even need XP-mode most of the time, particularly on 32-bit editions of Windows 7. I've found that even the 64-bit editions will run just about anything if you simply set the "compatibility flags" on the main program executables. Just how bad are these applications that you have to support? Shouldn't you be blaming the app vendors instead of Microsoft?

Still no EXT3/EXT4 (or any Unix-type), Large FAT or GPT support

Are you kidding me? First, Windows has had GPT disk and boot support since Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1, it has xFAT, NTFS on removable drives, and there's third-party EXT3 plugins.

If you think EXT3 on Windows is an important feature, again, You're Doing It Wrong. NTFS is a superior filesystem for Windows in practically every way. If you want to share data between Windows and Linux, use NTFS drivers on Linux, or a server with SAMBA.

Limit of 2 physical processors? Really? It's easy to get 4 processors in a box these days with 8 cores each especially in the academic world

That sucks, but 2 sockets is 12-16 cores these days. If you need more computing power than that, than you can afford a Windows Server 2008 R2 license, which gives you almost all the Windows 7 features, and more processor socket licenses. It's a commercial operating system, and it costs money.

Full Disk Encryption requires TPM chips which are missing in just about any system these days so you still have to go into a 3rd party solution.

The TPM requirement can be turned off using a group policy setting, but then it's not transparent to users, they have to enter a pass-phrase on every boot. External disk encryption doesn't require a TPM chip by default, I use that feature on my rather old laptop that doesn't have a TPM chip.

You still have to download a virus scanner, there is none built-in nor is the OS self-contained enough to be used without one.

The free Microsoft Security Essentials AV is generally considered to be top-notch. It's not included because of anti-trust regulations. The five minutes spent downloading it once won't kill you.

Re:Windows 7 (1)

increment1 (1722312) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749462)

It's hard to think how Microsoft can make the next Windows better from Windows 7.

I'd like to see more support for per application permissions. Each application should be able to be restricted in terms of where it can read / write, what system properties it can modify, and what network resources it can use. This would need to be far more granular than simply allowing a program administrative permission or not.

The above should all be implemented easily for the user, with the program requesting specific rights as needed (or during installation).

One can dream...

Re:Windows 7 (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749540)

  • When an application requires higher privileges, you should always get a UAC prompt, rather than quite often getting "access denied" instead. The control panel should make it easy to elevate permissions when necessary. It should be obvious (as in not having to search on the internet to find out how) how to run Windows Explorer in admin mode. You should never have to login to an admin account to do anything. In short tidy up the security system so that it is as seamless as possible.
  • Change as little as possible so that users don't have to relearn where everything is again.
  • Give everyone XP mode.

Re:Windows 7 (0)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749586)

It's hard to think how Microsoft can make the next Windows better from Windows 7.

Easy: replace their kernel with the linux kernel.

windows 7 (1)

persaples (1969960) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749394)

What a HUGE improvement over VISTA. THAT was going to kill me with slowness, etc.

Re:windows 7 (2)

joeflies (529536) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749428)

I would have phrased your post as a question rather than a statement.

What huge improvement over Vista?

Windows 7 from the user experience is mostly Vista with feature tweaks and better driver support. The rest is mostly marketing.

Re:windows 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34749806)

Correction: Win7 is mostly Vista SP1 with feature tweaks and better driver support. Most of the Vista hell got worked out by SP1.

Re:windows 7 (1, Interesting)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749902)

Windows 7 from the user experience is mostly Vista with feature tweaks and better driver support. The rest is mostly marketing.

True, but what an amazingly difference that marketing makes. It is incredible how many people around here have gushing praise for Windows 7, and yet total scorn for Vista. The main reason for this is hype, most for the downwards hype that Vista has got.

How many people skipped Vista all togather because of what everyone else was saying about it. I know I almost did. When I got my first laptop with Vista, I was ready with my XP disc in hand to wipe it when I decided to have a quick look at the OS to see how bad it really was. It wasn't bad at all (or at least nothing like the bad press that it got). That laptop is still on Vista today.

I acutally got quite angry with myself for believing the bad hype. I have long known to ignore positive spin on a product from the companies and reviewers, but Vista was the first time I had been sucked in by negative hype in the communuty. So many of the things that people said about it were just outright lies. It became obvious that a lot of people who denigrated the OS had never actually used it. That is not to say that it didn't have problems, just not as many as people said.

So sure, if you went from XP to Windows 7 then you would be much more likely to have good things to say about it. So Microsoft didn't really need to make substantial changes to Windows 7. They just needed to release an OS that had good driver support from the start and could start with a clean slate with the community.

Re:windows 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34750002)

What a HUGE improvement over VISTA

I hope you are being sarcastic. 7 is constantly slower than Vista.

Chrome adverts (0)

Timmmm (636430) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749408)

Google just (re)started a pretty big advertising campaign for chrome on the London underground.

Re:Chrome adverts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34749962)

Makes you wonder, why the hell would an advertising company spend millions (or billions?) on advertising a product which they don't sell or get any money from?!
Not to mention the amount of money going into developing and maintaining it. ... I believe it's because Google is the world's biggest privacy threat (far bigger than governments) and a stealth spyware corporate empire.

Bad news for anyone doing web sites (4, Informative)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749410)

With the continuing use of XP we'll still be supporting IE6, 7 and 8 for the forseeable future, given that IE9 won't run on XP.

Re:Bad news for anyone doing web sites (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749688)

JChrome, Firefox, Safari and Opera run on Windows XP very nicely. IE 9 could run on Windows XP just as nicely, actually, but MS decided to make an artificial impediment.

Re:Bad news for anyone doing web sites (1)

zaivala (887815) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749872)

This is only a problem for people using IE, yes? Grow up and use a real browser.

Here come the "its not better than XP" posts (5, Interesting)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749440)

Let me count the ways:

1. The UAC - unfortunately users can't be bothered to run as a non-admin and just use runas, so UAC is the next best thing. Running as non-admin is easier than ever.

2. 64-bit support with easy to find 64-bit drivers. If you want MS to sign your drivers you need to provide 64-bit.

3. Protected mode - not as in memory but as in a native sandboxing technology that IE and and Adobe X use. These apps interact with the OS via a broker process. This is also why so many exploit target the add-ons (Flash, pre-X Adobe, Java) and not the browser itself.

4. Bitlocker

5. Large disk support.

6. SSD TRIM support. I have 3 SSD drives and they would be a PITA without TRIM in 7.

7. Better security architecture. A lot of things dont run as non-admin in XP so you needed to run them as admin or system to make them work, which greatly increased your attack surface.

8. Better Windows update agent. I love the option to ether use my WSUS or go to MS to get updates . As well as a decent GUI that shows me that status of the updates, last update, etc.

9. Windows Media Center done right.

10. Powershell support native.

11. A decent taskbar, finally.

12. Performance increase. I've run 7 on 256 megs of RAM on an old P4 and it flies on modern hardware.

13. Youre going to upgrade anyway from XP eventually, might as well get something good.

Re:Here come the "its not better than XP" posts (4, Informative)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749514)

The importance of any upgrade is subjective, so YMMV. For me, the recent upgrade from XP to 7 was a hassle with no benefit. The main difference is I spend more time looking for stuff they moved around. I also found Win 7 definitely more RAM hungry, and the USB driver for my Garmin GPS doesn't work under 7.

Re:Here come the "its not better than XP" posts (2)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749650)

For home users you're right. For the majority of business users however who don't get the latest version of Windows every 3 or 4 years:

1. UAC is irrelevant to business users who use a locked down XP Pro

2. 32 bit is going nowhere for the foreseeable future

3. The only point I agree with, however a good IT department and good security software will keep threats to a minimum

4. Bitlocker is irrelevant to most business users

5. It'll be quite a while before most business users need 2TB disk space

6. Few business users will have SSDs in the foreseeable future either

7. Few business users are allowed to run anything as admin

8. Again largely meaningless to most users who get their updates from IT

9. Meaningless to business users

10 Useful but not exactly a dealbreaker

11. As point 10

12. I'd dispute that but it's always YMMV on assertions like that

13. You shouldn't have to upgrade if the software does what you want it to.

Re:Here come the "its not better than XP" posts (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749662)

Only 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 are really important. In a company environment, all can be addressed with correct policies in place. That's much cheaper than having to upgrade to Win 7.

Re:Here come the "its not better than XP" posts (1)

DannyO152 (544940) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749744)

As to Point 13 and specifically "eventually," if that moment is 2012, then maybe one could go from XP to the no-doubt-better-successor to Windows 7. Is the cost of XP to Win7 and Win7 to Win8 really going to be less expensive than XP straight to Win8? If it were, then people will choose to stick with XP. Costs and applications trump the underlying benefits of the new operating system, unless those benefits are realized with little user intervention. XP to Win7 was not such an upgrade.

Re:Here come the "its not better than XP" posts (0, Troll)

crhylove (205956) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749920)

1. UAC - Cruft, annoying, and a total CHARADE of security.

2. XP x64 while hard to find drivers for is a better performer than any other Windows derivative. FACT I use it.

3. I've already reformatted dozens of Win 7 machines, so if you are trying to say security is somehow better than XP: FALSE.

4. Does somebody use this? How does it help?

5. I have several 2tb drives running happily on xp machines. I have not seen/purchased a larger drive yet.

6. I haven't used this. Haven't seen it. Don't know what it's for. Every business I support has IDE or Sata drives, no SSD.

7. Bullshit. Just as many virii as XP and Vista. Maybe more. Absolutely abysmal compared to EVERY Linux distro.

8. Updates are slow, frequently crash, and include malware that would hurt most of my clients. Same as in XP.

9. Compared to VLC? FAIL

10. OK, so 1 sysadmin somewhere in the arctic might actually notice/use this. Compared to Linux? FAIL

11. You mean a giant ugly one that doesn't recognize portable apps at all? FAIL

12. This I'd like to see. Other than x64 support (and as I said, XP x64 is much faster), Win 7 has been slower than XP in every benchmark I've thrown at it.

13. Agreed. You should try Linux Mint. Because other than getting off Windows altogether, moving from XP is definitely a down grade in every situation, for every user.

XP IS better. As a sysadmin I've had nothing but problems migrating customers from XP. By default I now reinstall OEM XP over Vista/Seven as step one in the standard workstation build. Everything just works. The menus are easy to navigate, well documented, and not randomly changed for no usability improvements. Windows 7 is crap. It's better than Vista, but so is punching myself in the face.

Try Linux Mint 10. It's about 50,000 x better than Windows 7, and has all the features you CLAIMED Win 7 has, but done properly. For my clients that require Windows software, I'll not be moving them away from XP until Bill Gates comes to my house and shoots me in the face. Oh wait, he did that: It's called Vista/7.

Re:Here come the "its not better than XP" posts (2)

antdude (79039) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749974)

12. 256 MB of RAM? I can't stand with 512 MB of RAM! XP Pro. SP2 and SP3 were faster especially when multitasking.

Re:Here come the "its not better than XP" posts (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749990)

UAC

On the flip side, if they are running as admin, they only have to click "OK". Its better, but it doesnt protect against PEBKAC :(

protected mode...this is why they target the addons...

IIRC Protected mode isnt a huge barrier, as its been broken. Addons are targeted because they are wildly insecure, installed on a huge userbase, and are cross-browser-- so even though a very large minority(?) of users are on chrome / firefox, they are still trivially targetable.

bitlocker

I dont understand why someone wanting full disk encryption would pay the extra money for ultimate rather than simply getting TrueCrypt, TBQH

SSD TRIM

Agreed, though Im not sure how they had the foresight to implement that before SSDs really hit it big.

No real complaints on the others, though.

Re:Here come the "its not better than XP" posts (2)

chrismcb (983081) | more than 3 years ago | (#34750044)

11. A decent taskbar, finally.

My BIGGEST gripe with Win 7 is the taskbar. It seems like every time Microsoft does something right, they do it wrong in the next version. The taskbar in Win 7 is horrible. I want my quick launch back. I want to know what will happen when I click a button. I hate that I have to right click to start a new instance. About the only the Win7 did right is make it easier to hide tray icons. Give me the XP task bar anyday. And get rid of the stupid aero look.

TL;DR version (5, Informative)

WinstonWolfIT (1550079) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749480)

20% of the computers currently in use were shipped with Windows 7.

My two cents (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749510)

The thing about XP, it's familiar and simple. People are just so use to it. My experience with Windows 7 is that things aren't where they use to be. So, maybe that's the issue.

Now, for the fun part of this post. Anyone here hanging onto unused copies of XP just incase you decide to build a new machine? I know I am.

Re:My two cents (1)

Rinnon (1474161) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749704)

The thing about XP, it's familiar and simple. People are just so use to it. My experience with Windows 7 is that things aren't where they use to be. So, maybe that's the issue.

Now, for the fun part of this post. Anyone here hanging onto unused copies of XP just incase you decide to build a new machine? I know I am.

I hold on to old OS' in case I have to do work on an OLD machine, not a new one. I don't plan on installing XP on a brand new machine any more than I was installing Windows 2000 on a new machine when I had XP. I'm not saying upgrading blindly for the sake of upgrading is the way to go, but Windows 7 is straight up more stable than XP in all of my experiences. It's a pleasure to install on new machines, since it handles most drivers on it's own, it has better security, doesn't let people use IE6, and I haven't had a single client (personal use computers) have any concerns or issues that stemmed from Windows 7. Even users who had gone from Windows XP to Windows 7 didn't take that long to acclimatize.

Re:My two cents (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749864)

Having used IE8, I can say IE6 is a lot better. I am not sure which one is more secure, but IE6 seems less buggy, and allows me to rearrange the menubar/toolbar the way I want.

On a more humourous note, one upside to IE8 is that I was able to use a user agent changer so websites think I am using IE6 instead of IE8.

Vendors are Lazy (4, Insightful)

headkase (533448) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749588)

Vista was actually ok and now it's up to Service Pack 2 it's not that bad. What gave Vista the bad reputation was that at launch drivers were horrible. Vista was the re-architecture step for Windows and vendors by being late to develop well-behaved drivers significantly contributed to it's negative reception. Now, fast forward to today: 7 is Vista+ and vendors are already up to speed with their drivers and it had a 1 year open beta to nail everything down. No hassles, good support.

Vista took the hits that prepared the wider software-ecosystem for 7.

Another thing to think about is that with Windows 7 64-bit is now entering the mainstream. My 7 machine is 64-bit and I have 8GB in the puppy. Of course, my Ubuntu laptop is also 64-bit even though it only has 2GB of RAM.

Re:Vendors are Lazy (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749624)

I love Vista. Its wonderful performance and "phone home" functionality that sends personal information to Microsoft made me become a happy Linux user. I haven't run Windows at home since.

Re:Vendors are Lazy (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749658)

If it wasn't for games I'd be Linux only too. Fact is WINE doesn't cut it and I don't want an XBox 360.

Re:Vendors are Lazy (1)

rubypossum (693765) | more than 3 years ago | (#34750050)

yeah, I'm not sure what Vista you're using but it's not the same as mine. Vista was a miserable pile of crap, particularly on a memory starved system - which every system that I used that ran Vista always was. It was slow, always swapping and .... cludgey. My laptop doubled in speed when I installed Windows 7, even on a fresh install it was miserable under Vista. Now I've moved everything over to Ubuntu and it's even better.

good riddance to bad rubbish (2)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749672)

I'll see you in Hell, Vista. You and RAMBUS!

Re:good riddance to bad rubbish (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34749782)

I'll see you in Hell, Vista.

You mean, Hasta la vista? :)

64-bit? (1)

Magnum7385 (852146) | more than 3 years ago | (#34749756)

I admit, I have not RTFA, but I'm interested in the statistics overall of Windows-based 64-bit systems, versus 32 bit. I'd also more specifically like to know the numbers on XP 64-bit ..
Anyone have a link for me? Thanks.

Interesting parallels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34750020)

Afghanistan: Started 2001, end of major combat projected 2011, complete end projected 2014.

Windows XP: First shipped 2001, end of sales late 2010 (some units still out there, probably sold out mid-2011), full end of lifecycle projected 2014.

Two pains in the ass that will never end have similar timelines indeed.

Why is this news? (2)

MikeV (7307) | more than 3 years ago | (#34750068)

No one sells Vista anymore or offers it pre-installed. Everyone is selling 7 now and offering it pre-installed. /. is acting like this is some sort of race. Windows 7 is winning!!!! Winning against what? Vista is dead. Being proud that 7 is winning against roadkill is pretty pathetic.

Who needs 64 bit? (1)

ceCA (675081) | more than 3 years ago | (#34750094)

Sure 64 bit let's u address much more memory but it also doubles the size of any 32 program once converted to 64 bit. What a fuckn waste. Nobody needs 64 bit programs that are wasteful by definition. Unless u are running some large database in ram or designing a nuclear bomb u really don't need this useless wasteful crap called 64 bit. It's getting to the point now that buying a computer is like buying a muscle car from the 70's. What a waste !!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>