What Will You Do with Windows 7?

I could not agree more, and I too am cursed with a very high IQ.

I say cursed because I live in a country that does not appreciate it.

Anyway back on subject an OS that actually works is a very simple concept and so is single user installable programs, this can also be extended to multi-license establishments with ease. Funny Mickey soft has never caught onto the idea of a program running only if the user requests it, far to simple a solution I suppose.

Once again the problem comes down to the making of money as fast as possible and the belief that the stock holders must be satisfied at all times at all costs. Sad.

I would say Windows is a "marketing-driven" operating system something... They put everything into it what they thought they could bill for.

I will stick with XP operating system and use the Windows 7 Cd as a diffraction grating. They make awesome Images specially when the laser level is enough to start a meltdown. I'm seriously considering getting a MAC now.

I've been using Vista for about 6 months. At home it's no problem. At work with a very large network it sucks. My biggest complaint is with compatibility to earlier software. Why should I have to pay $130 for my kids student version of office suite just because they need MS word. I already bought 2 versions previously each time they phased them out of working with the new OS. As mentioned earlier, they just want our money.

The next computer I need to purchase will definitely not be operated by Winblows!

We're using ofc 2003 on our vista machine no problems??

This is my second post on this subject. I guess what I fail to realize is "why" Microsoft must continually remake its Windows OS, assign it a new name, and force it onto us with all of the grief it causes? What could possibly be wrong with making an original product and continually offering evolutionary improvements rather than make-overs? It sure confounds me.

Noted, that it has been a long time since the debut of the original Windows OS. It is also noted that tremendous advances have occurred in regards to computer speed and circuitry. But still I ask "why" it is necessary to make "new" Windows products that enslave the computer industry, and the end user?

It truly seems that computer makers (save for Apple) have virtually no autonomy and are enslaved to follow lockstep with the whims of Microsoft. Computers seem to now be made so they are wholly dependent on the vagaries of the current or upcoming Microsoft OS. I guess for the typical purchaser of a new PC that it is all okay, especially if one uses the PC solely as a source of entertainment rather than an instrument of work. Since I use mine for design work, data sorting, and recordkeeping I have no use for all of the flash and glam.

I have been busy this weekend rearranging computers around the house and transferring a lot of data machine-to-machine. I read with interest this morning where I can get the free "upgrades" (???????) that will allow Vista to operate my AutoDesk software packages. I will investigate this, as I have a Vista machine that is virtually useless to me.

Best Regards,

Ing. Robert Forbus

Revenue,

revenue,

revenue.

Need I say more?

Hi,

I You have read my posts then You would understand why.....

That is not professionall work but shoveling code on pile with hope it would work, and if it not work, MS can allways patch it, and offten that patches are bigger than the originall issue of OS :-((

If they sell perfect OS, then what would they sell later? Also, what would 15 000+ MS programmers do?

Also, they capitalize on fact that companies usually have yearly budget for software, and they would like to take money from them every time if possible!

But, MS biggest suporter INTEL is doing similar thing by selling slowed down versions of CPUs then increasing speed on same processor in steps that would let them sell same processor (in slightly different packing) up to 10 years, as they have to have breathing space to be able to invent something really new....

Also, when they make mistake, like it was with one of first Pentiums that was making mistake in arithmetic operations on 4th decimal position, which was no problem for ordinary users, but it cost me 6 months of painstakingly cheking program that calculated planetary positions, which must be correct on minimum 8 decimall places.

When they admitted that processor is faulty, I tried to get replacement, but I was asked to send bad CPU to INTEL (which would take one month) and then wait till they send it back! Nedless to say, I would lose in two onths more than computer costed, so I just sold it to less demanding user and buy myself new one.....

I lost 3/4 of computer value, as computer years are short, and even after I buy it it is allready >>used<< and worth half less....

So, MS would be doing this untill users in majority say >>NO!<< to such politic and demand value for their money, not that one must sign EULA with clauses like >>not fit for any particular purpose<<, what reads to me >>not fit for anything<<!

Just like with everything else nowadays, Vista is a little bit crazy when it comes to security. This is what has caused alot of the "What the %*($!!!" moments with me. Once all the upgrades came out, Vista was alot better at managing security. To people who say Mac is the cure all, you are flat out wrong. I've only dabbled with them, and they crash more often than Vista. Sure, Linux and all that jazz is amazing... if you are a computer programmer.

Windows XP sucked at first but then came SP2 and SP3, its going the same with Vista.

I think you might be a little "misguided" with regard to Vista, probably as a result of MS, so don't blame yourself. Many others are just as ill informed.

Basically, I never buy a Win OS till it is at least 2 years old....many others do the same.....its good practice....

But recently, MS has brought Windows 7 DRAMATICALLY forward, for only one reason, Vista is not selling as it has so many "problems".

MS have NEVER brought out a new OS so quickly after another, they go through sp 1 to sp 5 or 6 first!!!

You only have to read the computer press (I do) to see that....

At Wikipedia (Windows 7) you can read a reasonable accurate presentation of Win7.

In several tests, it has proved faster than both Vista and WinXP. WinXP came second in many areas.....

It is trues to say that Win7 is an improved Vista, so you could call it Vista SP3 or so....if it makes you happier.....

Expect it in around 12 months, earlier if it proves stable enough, which even in Beta, testers were surprised just how stable it is now in Beta test......

WinXP started life on the 25th October 2001, so it is more than 7 years old and really really stable now. I will be staying with it for at least the next 3 years, probably more as I have too much invested in XP compatible software to climb onto even a perfectly running Vista or Win7.....

You have confinced me. Good luck to windows 7