Windows 7: The Linux Killer

Please everyone read the article linked at the bottom of this post.

We cant let the fact that no company owns Linux be a weakness, it has to be a strength. Microsoft is betting we cant match there marketing blitz when windows 7 comes out. They plan on taking our foot hold in the netbooks market. This estimated 30 percent we now have is important. If people get used to running Linux on netbooks, they'll consider buying Linux on desktop PCs as well. Here's what Dickie Chang, an analyst at IDC in Taipei, told Bloomberg: "It's a real threat to Microsoft. It gives users a chance to see and try something new, showing them there is an alternative."

Dont say we haven't been warned

http://www.itworld.com/windows/59657/windows-7-linux-killer - -

Linux uses much less than "one half a gig of ram", and it runs on Netbooks much smoother, as the Windows GUI is extremely labor intensive compared to WMII or XFCE.

I think it's a safe bet that something will go terribly wrong with 7.

Will Duke Nukem Forever run on Vista 7?

I can't say i'm afraid of a threat on the netbook platform.

Mason Whitaker said: I think it's a safe bet that something will go terribly wrong with 7.

:-)

Really, I do wonder about another user interface change for those poor Windows users.

[I]'Now that the covers are finally off, the scale of the new OS becomes clear. The user interface has undergone the most radical overhaul and update since the introduction of Windows 95 thirteen years ago.' http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081028-first-look-at-windows-7.html[/I]

I believe that some of the key figures in developing the Office Ribbon have been tinkering with the UX (User eXperience <sigh>). I have found the feedback of the Ribbon has been about 50/50 with people either loving it or hating it after using it for a short while - I am not sure if it 'grows' on you after being forced to use it for a while.

The netbook market should have a requirement for simplistic interfaces - although personally I would want the ability to run a full-on interface if I wanted to. Does anyone know if W7 will have a stripped down inteface for the netbook market?

I suspect that MS are hoping that netbooks will become powerful enough to run a hefty Windows / Office suite / IE8 system without struggling like they do now. Lets hope for their sake that battery technology gets good enough to run these machines for more than a few hours.

I'm not really keen on all this campaigning - I recommend Linux to my friends - I have two converts so far - but really I'm happy to go about my business enjoying Linux.

All the reports about W7 so far are really good so this might slow down the migration from Windows to Mac/Linux.

.

Daveski said: Does anyone know if W7 will have a stripped down inteface for the netbook market?A stripped down version? So it'll basically be Windows Vista except a changed Windows Shell? :P

I can't understand how seemingly in every review that I have seen so far about Windows 7 is so praised and so hyped. Yet it hasn't been released yet and won't be for another year.

A Linux killer? So what does Microsoft expect? To take Linux' often quoted market share of .86% and bring it down to .75% ?

:lolflag:

WIn 7 a Linux Killer?ROFL

It's way too late for it .:lolflag:

Mason Whitaker said: A stripped down version? So it'll basically be Windows Vista except a changed Windows Shell? :P

Ah, but isn't W7 supposed to be lighter-weight that Vista (not really likely to be heavier unless we are all expected to upgrade to 64 core CPUs with several Terabytes of RAM).

This has to spell the end for 32bit OSes now that the 4Gb max is basically just enough to run Vista with some moderate apps.

Windows 7 is fugly. If I wanted to use KDE i'd use Kubuntu for free! Gnome or the standard windows taskbar FTW.

Interesting article, but this is old news.

Microsoft has been trying to subdue the use of Linux in desktop/notebook/netbook systems for a long time. I vaguely remember a similar article with Vista in place of Windows 7.

As far as I'm concerned Microsoft can try all they want to take part of the market back, but for those newly satisfied Linux users, I don't think it will be incentive to switch back to Windows. However, this world is about choice, as has been repeated many times on these forums. If people choose Windows 7 over a Linux netbook, that is their choice. I will not force Linux on anyone and hope the community would have the same sense.

Would it be nice to see Linux retain its current market share in netbooks, or even increase it? Sure. Will I protest Microsoft's competition? No.

Just my two cents. Cheers!

Kernel Sanders said: Windows 7 is fugly. If I wanted to use KDE i'd use Kubuntu for free! Gnome or the standard windows taskbar FTW.

I said the exact same thing on another forum, and no one would agree with me that it looked like KDE <_<

7 is going to be good. I just have that feeling. After the Vista fiasco, they really can't afford another Sh** system. So they are putting their hands to the grindstone, taking a lot of industry feedback and really concentrating on making a halfway decent system.

Will people love it ? I think so. But windows will always be synonymous with viruses, poorly constructed programs and internet vulnerability. Linux will steadily grow, but i think at the same rate is is now.

Why i think it'll be better ? Vista is rock bottom.

Besides, how could it Kill Linux ? We'll all still be right here.

Mason Whitaker said: I said the exact same thing on another forum, and no one would agree with me that it looked like KDE <_<

From what I've seen those other people must have rose tinted spectacles. I'll stick to KDE 4 for sure.

I could never afford the price anyway

They can't kill Linux anyway, nobody can. Not unless they switch off the internet or something, or use an EMP weapon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnYGHA5asj4

.

Chame_Wizard said: WIn 7 a Linux Killer?ROFL

It's way too late for it .:lolflag:

I commented on that article a few days ago. It has to be one of the more stupid articles about Linux and Windows ever...not just the idiotic premise of it, but the fundamental factual errors...as wellas the historical ignorance of the author.

The only way Win will "kill" Linux is if they have an OS that has no DRM and is zero $$$ cost. Both of which will never happen.

I will email google and ibm telling them to close up shop. It's all over people! Nice while it lasted.

BGFG said: 7 is going to be good. I just have that feeling. After the Vista fiasco, they really can't afford another Sh** system. So they are putting their hands to the grindstone, taking a lot of industry feedback and really concentrating on making a halfway decent system.

Will people love it ? I think so. But windows will always be synonymous with viruses, poorly constructed programs and internet vulnerability. Linux will steadily grow, but i think at the same rate is is now.

Why i think it'll be better ? Vista is rock bottom.

Besides, how could it Kill Linux ? We'll all still be right here.

If Microsoft can somehow pull a magical operating system that will be both stable and secure, I'll consider using dual booting it on my laptop. Of course, the chances of this are higher than Charles Darwin popping up out of his grave and screaming out that humans descended from Penguins.

I don't particularly like the looks of the new interface, and the Office 2007 ribbon I absolutely despise. I can see where it would be appealing to some people, but I am not one of them. It sure won't kill Linux for me.

Daveski said:

This has to spell the end for 32bit OSes now that the 4Gb max is basically just enough to run Vista with some moderate apps.

:---)

Just give me the classic Windows theme and I'd be good using Windows 7. I'm done with all of these crappy visual effects. I do like some effects but sometimes its just too much for me. I won't really abandon Linux but all I will really use Windows for is games.

Who cares?

The people who want to use Windows 7 will surely upgrade to Windows 7.

The people who want to continue using Linux will continue to use Linux.

Life will go on. It's not the end of the world.

give me a way to use appelets from GNOME thanks naren

Anyone who knows about Linux will keep using Linux but the average Microsoft groupie will never move from it.

I work with one and he, even though he is in IT, says he doesn't trust Linux and I asked, "so you trust Microsoft?" and his answer was "NO"

i have been running win7 for some time now, i prefer it to vista but have found Xp to be faster, better and lighter than both vista and 7.

My overall impression with vista is that more and more control of the operating system is being taken away from the end user

2010 is the release date for Windows 7, but they are running WAY behind schedule .. that means either they will hold off on release or (as is their usual practice) release a GAMMA version and charge the customers (suckers) big bucks for it so they can get the auto generated reports back on the crashes and then come out with a service pack to address some, but not all, of the issues.

Already IE 8 has been proven to be so bloated it sinks under it's own weight unless run in compatibility mode! IE alone uses more ram than XP does. (think 380mb of ram is a tad much for a browser with no plug ins!) (that may change .. but that's where it stands right now.)http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/02/1418252

Vista is already the slowest running system they have ever released because of the bloat and threading (over two minutes for a dvd to load into Media Player on a dual 64 2.4 laptop is SLOW) .. can you just imagine Windows 7?

Daveski said: Ah, but isn't W7 supposed to be lighter-weight that Vista (not really likely to be heavier unless we are all expected to upgrade to 64 core CPUs with several Terabytes of RAM).

This has to spell the end for 32bit OSes now that the 4Gb max is basically just enough to run Vista with some moderate apps.

I run Vista quite happily on 2 gigs with Gimp and Digital Photo Professional open. I do have a 256mb video card which probably helps, and I have UAC and Windows Search turned off (Windows Search indexes your entire drive, and then when it's done with that it indexes everything your doing while you do it. The goal behind that is to make the occasional search faster, but it just slows the computer down most of the time, even when your not searching).

I switched to Ubuntu when my Win 98 machine was just not getting used. Not because it was slow or outdated, but because nothing was supported. Now with Ubuntu it's like I have a brand new computer.

I love Windows and Linux , so I'll have both

I just saw some video's on it, looks fantastic, I do like to change stuff up a bit though, and it looks al most just like Vista. So I hope the final versions have a different interface and design.

Microsoft has shown before how tough it can be on competitors -- remember lotus 1-2-3

I'm sure M$ do remember...

But now it's called http://symphony.lotus.com/software/lotus/symphony/home.nsf/home

What a nice way to die!

Sealbhach said: They can't kill Linux anyway, nobody can. Not unless they switch off the internet or something, or use an EMP weapon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnYGHA5asj4

.

Or Microsoft could just do this.

"Less than half a gig of RAM." Great. DSL can run a GUI in less than 48 megs.

There is no way M$ will be able to pull off getting rid of Linux. If they haven't done it yet, they probably wont, just read the link in my sig. And in that article the OP posted, this sounds like star wars; " We must destroy their market share" Emperor Gates stated. Not only that, but 3/4 of the people here wouldn't touch M$ if it was free. It will take something that is far beyond Linux's abilities to get a lot of people here to switch, which wont happen.

oldsoundguy said: 2010 is the release date for Windows 7, but they are running WAY behind schedule ..

Uhh....no.

MikeTheC said: Or Microsoft could just do this.

Yeah, that would kill Linux.

.

MellonCollie said: Uhh....no.

Uhh ,,,, yes

Primary Beta test version has been pushed out .. was supposed to be in January. Have an acquaintance that is an authorized beta tester .. he has yet to receive any notifications or disks. Only thing he has in hand is IE 8.

If your acquaintance has been accepted onto the beta for Windows 7, then he/she would have received an email a couple of weeks ago that started with the following paragraph...

Dear [First Name],

The Microsoft Windows® beta team would like to extend an invitation to you to participate in the Microsoft Windows 7 and Windows Server® 2008 R2 beta program planned for early 2009 as announced at the Professional Developers Conference Oct 2008. Accepting this invitation will allow you to access pre-release versions of the next version of Windows for the purpose of evaluating and providing feedback. We highly value your past feedback and know we can count on you again to help us build a great new version of Windows!

Now, tell me, how is Microsoft running "WAY behind schedule"?

No I do not think Windows 7 is a Linux killer. Also MS has no concern about Linux on the Desktop.In the Server market though MS has concerns.

Sealbhach said: Yeah, that would kill Linux.

.

Actually, in this original clip you can clearly see the spirit form of Linux set free from it's Earthly bonds...

oO

*WHISTLES LOUDLY IN THREAD*

Ok, folks, hang on a second here...

Windows 7 is simply another OS product from Microsoft, almost certainly just as "designed in committee" as every previous version of Windows has been. No doubt it'll have a slick, candy-coated and highly inelegant user interface, bugs and glitches, and will be full of marketing potential. So, as a couple others here have already said, *who cares?*

Windows 7 is going to be no more of a Linux killer than Vista, or XP before it, or Windows 2000 before that. Microsoft is still continuing their campaign of "security through obscurity" and the never-ending parade of user-encumberance and lock-down. They have not one single spark of creative genius amongst them, and there's nothing in their history to suggest Windows 7 will be the product of such a thing, either.

Yet some of you folks are the most Chicken Little, cry-baby nags I've ever seen! Linux is secure and stable and credible because it is open to peer-review, because if it's own proud lineage, and because the people who collectively write the Kernel and everything else actually care that, at the end of the day, they'll have to live with the results of whatever they design. None of that is going to change, no matter what happens with Microsoft.

Consider this: Let's say it was Ford or Honda we were talking about here, and let's say their 09 product line-up was, in truth, all lemons because of flaws in their designs. They start selling the '09s, people start having problems, there's this massive outcry, and they finally fess up to the truth of the situation. And *then*, you know what their answer was? "Oh, that's ok folks. Just wait until the '10s come out, we'll have all that fixed by then." Ford would go out of business! There would be lawsuits and government investigations galore! But what of Microsoft?

Nothing. Nothing at all. There's no consequence, and millions upon millions are -- quite *obviously* -- willing to give them a pass on it. Yet obviously, some considerable number of those customers have left Microsoft, mostly for Mac OS X, but bunch have come over to us in the Linux community. You don't honestly expect these folks -- who have now had their eyes *amply* opened to the truth -- to go *back* to Microsoft, do you?

Yet, what's rich is how some of you want to actually go on the war path and believe Win7 -- or Windows 8, or 9 -- will somehow be the death knell for Linux. Are you actually *serious?*

Give me a break...

Windows 7 is just an OS. Linux is half a dozen OSes (at least in the sense that users commonly define it; don't argue about semantics on that). MS released Vista thinking Moore's law would be in full effect and they'd do HW manufacturers the nice favor of pushing new computer sales. Then the netbook thing came along.

The telling thing isn't that Vista was too heavy to run on netbooks. As far as the industry was concerned, we were done with 500 mHz processors in desktops sometime around 2000. So you can't blame them for making an OS that didn't run on netbooks out of the box. But the telling thing is that Vista couldn't be adapted for them. So the only thing MS could do to adapt was to keep XP on life support a little longer.

This is where Linux has an advantage. It's not a big monolithic chunk of software (not talking kernel achitecture here, but rather the entire kernel-to-Desktop stack), it's adaptable. It's not stuck with whatever a company releases every 2-3 years, it's a big pile of parts that can be reassembled on the fly for whatever purpose.

So windows 7 is designed to fit nice onto netbooks? Ok. So it's designed to work better with "the cloud"? Who says either of those will be the hot new item in 2010? Neither one mattered much two years ago.

This is exactly why we don't need "one distro to rule them all", or one DE, or one office suite, or what have you. Because the next time MS misses the boat, Linux will be there with the right components for the job.

MikeTheC said: Yet some of you folks are the most [...] Are you actually *serious?* [...] Give me a break...

@MikeTheC: While the rest of your post makes some interesting arguments, I believe it may be best to back off on comments like the above. Infighting is among the fastest ways to turn users away from the community, IMO. I'm not a Moderator/Administrator, so I don't have any authority on this, but I like to see our community getting along as much as the next person.

Peace.

Why does Microsoft need a Linux killer? It already outsells Linux 4 to 1 on Netbooks and Linux has less then 1% of the desktop. Microsoft needs to be worried about Linux servers and Mobile smart phones.

jrusso2 said: why does microsoft need a linux killer? It already outsells linux 4 to 1 on netbooks and linux has less then 1% of the desktop. Microsoft needs to be worried about linux servers and mobile smart phones.

Winner!

jrusso2 said: Why does Microsoft need a Linux killer? It already outsells Linux 4 to 1 on Netbooks and Linux has less then 1% of the desktop. Microsoft needs to be worried about Linux servers and Mobile smart phones.

Because the problem is that they are selling 4 to 1 on an OLD product that they wanted to mothball.

Think about it. If Win7 can't run as well as XP on netbooks, and the netbook market grows, what happens? Either: - XP will continue to stay alive; this means that their offering in the netbook arena will look increasingly stale compared to the alternatives, they will be supporting three desktop OS's, and they won't be pushing people into Vista and Win7 licenses. - Linux marketshare will grow as more people see it as a viable option, possibly spilling over into desktop marketshare. - Apple will enter the netbook market and virtually take over.

Any smart company looks at the future and addresses threats before they become threats; so yes, they need a Linux killer. They need an XP killer even more. Either way you look at it, the bottom line is that Moore's law was turned on its ear by the netbook phenomenon, and MS needs an OS that addresses that fact.

don't laugh to much. i have been a spokes person for linux since about 2001. but windows 7 is quite posibly going to stop alot of potential future linux users from converting and may take some already devoted linux users. i personaly am writing this post from a windows 7 beta (build 6956) install and am very impressed. infact i may even BUY it when the final release is out. its true that linux still requires less in the area of memory than 7 but it is still extreamly fast and efficient. even on my old and dated hardware. truth of the matter is that linux won't just fade away because MS released a good os. linux will continue to grow because computer literacy is increasing in the world and people no longer need to be spoon fed by MS or apple any more. but windows has finaly caught up with the times and can now be concidered a good, reliable and STABLE os.

And as another note. 7 will work beautifly on netbooks and posibly even open some doors for them.

To say that Vista was a big flop and that XP was way better means you weren't paying attention when XP first came out. There were just as many bugs, and just as many fixes that needed to be fixed. But guess what, XP continued to be sold and is now the most popular OS.

Speaking of most popular, compare this to ice cream. Vanilla is the most sold flavor of ice cream on the planet. Does that make it the best? (not knocking vanilla by any means) Do you want to be vanilla or do you want to be something with a little more flavor?

To each their own.

So.. Windows 7 will be open source? No? Then it's not a Linux killer. Linux user base will continue to grow by virtue of it's openness. Eventually, we'll have something for everyone. But many are turned off by the proprietary b.s. and no closed products will ever provide such users' desires.

We need to make Windows users understand that the only difference in each Windows distrobution is what the start button looks like.

tastefulasever said: So.. Windows 7 will be open source? No? Then it's not a Linux killer. Linux user base will continue to grow by virtue of it's openness. Eventually, we'll have something for everyone. But many are turned off by the proprietary b.s. and no closed products will ever provide such users' desires.

exactly

LordSmight said: We need to make Windows users understand that the only difference in each Windows distrobution is what the start button looks like.

hardly. every ver of windows is verymuch different from the others. it sounds to me like you havn't got much os veriety under your belt.

LordSmight said: We need to make Windows users understand that the only difference in each Windows distrobution is what the start button looks like.

If the start button was the only thing that changed I'd still be a happy Windows user. But NOO!!!! Vista had to come along and change everything. Nothing was backwards compatible. Vista did give manufacturers plenty of time to build drivers for their stuff but they just didn't want too I guess. Games that ran just fine on XP or even 98 now won't run on Vista. My Lexmark printer won't print. My bluetooth adapter is only partially active. I can't adjust any settings in my scanner, it still scans but not in the most optimum settings. If everything that worked before still did, I would have never found you guys :D

lykwydchykyn said: Because the problem is that they are selling 4 to 1 on an OLD product that they wanted to mothball.

Think about it. If Win7 can't run as well as XP on netbooks, and the netbook market grows, what happens? Either: - XP will continue to stay alive; this means that their offering in the netbook arena will look increasingly stale compared to the alternatives, they will be supporting three desktop OS's, and they won't be pushing people into Vista and Win7 licenses. - Linux marketshare will grow as more people see it as a viable option, possibly spilling over into desktop marketshare. - Apple will enter the netbook market and virtually take over.

Any smart company looks at the future and addresses threats before they become threats; so yes, they need a Linux killer. They need an XP killer even more. Either way you look at it, the bottom line is that Moore's law was turned on its ear by the netbook phenomenon, and MS needs an OS that addresses that fact.

+1 for industry strategy and business savvy acumen.

technotitclan said: hardly. every ver of windows is verymuch different from the others. it sounds to me like you havn't got much os veriety under your belt.

Actually, that's "v[color=red]a[/color]riety", and I would be fairly tempted to agree with the person you're quoting, LordSmight.

Yes, absolutely there is new code in each successive release of Windows, but to seriously consider each one a completely new animal is also somewhat naïve. Until Microsoft deep-sixes it's existing codebase -- in it's entirety -- and literally starts from scratch, beginning with Code Line 1, there's nothing new to see here.

cabbiinc said: To say that Vista was a big flop and that XP was way better means you weren't paying attention when XP first came out. There were just as many bugs, and just as many fixes that needed to be fixed. But guess what, XP continued to be sold and is now the most popular OS.

Actually, I was paying attention then. Which is why I'm a little awestruck at Vista's failure. I figured people would bluster and gripe a bit, then it would just take over. But it hasn't. It's been two years now, by this time XP was well on it's way to Gold Standard. Look at Gartner's stats on Vista deployment that have been in the news lately. If that doesn't convince you that Vista is dead, consider Microsoft's own message: there focus lately has been nothing but Windows 7. They pulled the plug on the Vista marketing campaigns and trying to build buzz around something that won't be on the market for at least another year. Not only that, but they extended availability of XP another four months (for system builders). Why?

I think when SP1 failed to generate massive Vista rollouts, they gave up on Vista. It wasn't long after that you started hearing about Windows 7 all the time.

lykwydchykyn said: Actually, I was paying attention then. Which is why I'm a little awestruck at Vista's failure. I figured people would bluster and gripe a bit, then it would just take over. But it hasn't. It's been two years now, by this time XP was well on it's way to Gold Standard. Look at Gartner's stats on Vista deployment that have been in the news lately. If that doesn't convince you that Vista is dead, consider Microsoft's own message: there focus lately has been nothing but Windows 7. They pulled the plug on the Vista marketing campaigns and trying to build buzz around something that won't be on the market for at least another year. Not only that, but they extended availability of XP another four months (for system builders). Why?

I think when SP1 failed to generate massive Vista rollouts, they gave up on Vista. It wasn't long after that you started hearing about Windows 7 all the time.

Well, you can't get XP anymore unless you ask for it. And Vista ships with most new computers. You don't hear nearly as much griping going on since SP1, and there was a lot of griping about XP before SP2 shipped for that (I actually have a friend that download SP2 with a dialup connection, he was pissed when I told him that you could just email M$ and have a CD mailed to you for free). When 98 came out, Win 95 outsold it for at least a year. When XP came out, 98 outsold it. I've actually found that Vista is a very stable OS. In all my tries at screwing it up I've only found the BSD once, I've made it lock up a few times but I was doing things I shouldn't have in the registry. At this point, if I were given the choice between Vista and XP and 98/95/3.1 I'd take Vista. Now, if I could just get Vista to play nice with Ubuntu....

If you like vista and find it stable, that's fine; but it has no bearing on the reality of whether or not it's a business failure. Obviously our anecdotal impressions of what's happing now and then are not the same, but from what I see in the news about rollout plans, and Microsoft's own curious marketing strategies, it's clear that Vista is not doing well as a product. That's really what matters to this discussion, IMO.

lykwydchykyn said: If you like vista and find it stable, that's fine; but it has no bearing on the reality of whether or not it's a business failure. Obviously our anecdotal impressions of what's happing now and then are not the same, but from what I see in the news about rollout plans, and Microsoft's own curious marketing strategies, it's clear that Vista is not doing well as a product. That's really what matters to this discussion, IMO.

Really, so what company is doing better? Fact is M$ is still the top of the heap in marketshare, sales, and profit margin. The fact that you hear all the negatives about [insert new thing here] doesn't mean that it's just a failure. It just means that people will be most vocal about the negative side. It's not news when it works as it's supposed too.

Can things be improved? Yeah. But you can say that about any OS, or just about any product for that matter.

I don't think it will be a Linux killer, hopefully most people select their OS in the matter of their needs, and if Windows 7 can't give them the peoples needs it won't be a Linux killer.

And i ask the question: Why would Windows 7 (or Windows 6.1 as I like to call it) take so many people away from Linux? (In the meaning of technical stuff)

The only thing windows seems to be capable of killing is windows itself. Vista being the current prime example of how windows only hurts itself. For myself once I do away with xp windows will be just a memory and that time is getting closer day by day the more linux I learn the more windows becomes a thing of the past.

I was a windows power user for 20 years, linux has won me over and I plan on staying with it. It simply works better for me.

cabbiinc said: Really, so what company is doing better? Fact is M$ is still the top of the heap in marketshare, sales, and profit margin. The fact that you hear all the negatives about [insert new thing here] doesn't mean that it's just a failure. It just means that people will be most vocal about the negative side. It's not news when it works as it's supposed too.

Can things be improved? Yeah. But you can say that about any OS, or just about any product for that matter.

You keep defending Vista on a technical level, I'm not at all concerned with it's technical merits here. We're talking about it's success as a product. Assume for the sake of argument that it's the best OS in the universe. Doesn't matter here; we're talking about whether it has been a success as a commercial product.

Is Microsoft on top? Sure. But Vista is not, XP is, even 2 years after Vista's release, even six months after EOL for consumer sales (see: net apps data). This is a problem for them; and that seems evident as much from their actions as the data.

lykwydchykyn said: You keep defending Vista on a technical level, I'm not at all concerned with it's technical merits here. We're talking about it's success as a product. Assume for the sake of argument that it's the best OS in the universe. Doesn't matter here; we're talking about whether it has been a success as a commercial product.

Is Microsoft on top? Sure. But Vista is not, XP is, even 2 years after Vista's release, even six months after EOL for consumer sales (see: net apps data). This is a problem for them; and that seems evident as much from their actions as the data.

XP is not outselling Vista. XP has "Top Operating System Share" simply because it's been out longer, but you can't buy it any more. People have bought more Vista OS's in 2008 than all other OS's combined. How is that a failure as a commercial product :confused:

cabbiinc said: simply because it's been out longer, but you can't buy it any more.

You can still get retail and system builder discs from NewEgg.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16837116195

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116515

cabbiinc said: XP is not outselling Vista. XP has "Top Operating System Share" simply because it's been out longer, but you can't buy it any more. People have bought more Vista OS's in 2008 than all other OS's combined. How is that a failure as a commercial product :confused:

Well, obviously it's not outselling Vista because most people cannot buy it. But neither is it displacing XP at the pace expected.

So, according to your information, Vista is a commercial success for Microsoft? Selling as expected? The right product for the times? I just want to be clear what you are arguing.

Skripka said: You can still get retail and system builder discs from NewEgg.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16837116195

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116515

OK, so you've found a cache of them. But M$ hasn't made any since June 2008. The first link (retail version) only has 51 copies left. But the fact that Vista is growing in shares so rapidly should tell anyone that more Vistas are selling than anything else.

I used windows from the win98, 2000, and XP. I Changed to linux around 6 months ago and have no need to ever fall back. It simply 'works' my new 3e 904hd now has 8.04.1 on it. I don't think M$ will ever kill linux. The only way possible is if they tied up the hardware. Linux should be allowed to continue to grow as it has done and let those who can, use it. Those who would like to, be gently nurtured. Those who wish to continue to use M$ software should be beaten regularly...........sorry, left to get on with it. Linux can only benefit from the honing and maturation of it's slow rise to the fore.

regards

Fenris

lykwydchykyn said: Well, obviously it's not outselling Vista because most people cannot buy it. But neither is it displacing XP at the pace expected.

So, according to your information, Vista is a commercial success for Microsoft? Selling as expected? The right product for the times? I just want to be clear what you are arguing.

Selling as expected? No Right product for the times? Maybe, depends on your needs. Do I love it? By no means. Is it going to kill Linux? :lolflag: Not in the least. I'm just saying that you can't get yourself caught up in all the negative posts about it. There's a lot of plusses to it. It's more stable than XP. It's more secure than XP (arguable). It's plug and play. Some people don't want to know what a Kernel is or what sudo means. They just want to buy a game and play it. More things are made for Vista every day, at a very rapid rate. Digital cameras just seam to love Vista compared to XP. And no I'm not just talking Jpegs here. Support for XP will be ending soon. That's going to force Vista to the top of the heap. But you can't say it's the worst flop in Windows history. I have yet to meet anyone who said that Windows ME was a good operating system. To me that's the worst that they did.

cabbiinc said: Selling as expected? No

Right product for the times? Maybe, depends on your needs. Do I love it? By no means. Is it going to kill Linux? :lolflag: Not in the least. I'm just saying that you can't get yourself caught up in all the negative posts about it. There's a lot of plusses to it. It's more stable than XP. It's more secure than XP (arguable). It's plug and play. Some people don't want to know what a Kernel is or what sudo means. They just want to buy a game and play it. More things are made for Vista every day, at a very rapid rate. Digital cameras just seam to love Vista compared to XP. And no I'm not just talking Jpegs here. Support for XP will be ending soon. That's going to force Vista to the top of the heap. But you can't say it's the worst flop in Windows history. I have yet to meet anyone who said that Windows ME was a good operating system. To me that's the worst that they did.

The biggest plus I've seen is much better stability running current gen nuclear-reactor powered graphics bricks. My brother runs Vista, and the support for new cards is much better on the whole...at least on the ATi cards-my current gen Nvidia runs slick on XP, but games like Crysis that are designed with Nvidia cards in mind are crashy still.

So much passion... so good to see! :D

But this isn't really a matter of which o/s, 7 or Linux, is superior is it? The question of success depends very much on product marketing doesn't it?

[COLOR="Red"]"They have not one single spark of creative genius amongst them, and there's nothing in their history to suggest Windows 7 will be the product of such a thing, either."[/COLOR]

I love this statement. To me, this is where it's at... This is what I see happening...

TOP SECRET Microsoft(c) Marketing Budget SP1

*/ char_chew_up_some_budget [100000000] void main () while $$$ remain (spend) if (hurdle) {make_7_promises() do_nothing !wait} if (still no uptake) { make 7_excuses; do_nothing_loop } } if_something (sleep) 7 Wait_for_user_complaint (sleep) 10 get_user_data (save) //printf "Windows 7 would like to run on the latest new hardware" send user_id_ "email: (from little black book) sponsored_hardware_vendor_list"/ no encryption

boot {rescan_hardware flicker_led_promissingly(hard_drive) ## "Hey Dave, I like your code!" } create_general_protection_fault

}

See, I'm a noob who's only used (Ubuntu) Linux for a year now. And I guess after two years of solid use I'll still be a noob. Which is great :popcorn: After 3 years, who knows... there seems to be always something new to learn.

We don’t have the right to force people to choose one over the other. Nor should we pass value judgements on them for their choice: we don’t know the basis of their decisions. We have no obligation nor need to eradicate Windows in the marketplace. That’s because we aren’t a massive multi-national corporation which must exercise power over people in order to survive. However, I think having a 'decent' market share will make Linux a better OS. We all want an OS that is of a high quality (little bugs). This requires the software to be tested on many platforms and configurations. The bug needs to be reported, triaged, and fixed. The more people we have doing this the better our OS will be. Finally Data Standards are affected by market share. If a single software supplier has an overwhelming share of the market it can monopolize the formats of data that are being used for communications. For example when Microsoft had a total domination of the word processing market, it created a situation in which a proprietary data format MS Word DOC format became the standard. This created an obstacle to people wanting to have a choice when it came to word processors. No one wants to use a computer that cant exchange files with other computer users. Having a decent market share ensures we have a voice when it comes to digital standards. We don't need a 50% or 60% market share to ensure that Linux has a bright future. A 10% or 15% share of the marketplace would be completely sufficient.

Could the gaming community be the answer to Linux gaining more market share?

http://blog.andrewmin.com/2008/12/28/why-games-are-the-key-to-linux-adoption/ -

Wouldn't it just be the polish on the turd if Windows 7 was really Linux underneath? I agree it looks a lot like a KDE Desktop. I would laugh if MSFT just used the Linux Kernel and created a driver so the Linux Kernel could communicate with theirs.

:popcorn:

Windows 7 is a good year away from release why are so many Linux users so excited by it? I mean its basically a stripped down Vista and no one likes Vista.

In fact, at Microsoft's recent Professional Developers Conference, where the pre-beta of Windows 7 was unveiled, Windows Senior Vice President Steve Sinofsky showed off Windows 7 on his Lenovo S10 and said it used less than half of the netbook's 1GB of RAM.

My CRUX installation is using 91 MB of RAM for Firefox, cplay, and conky. I'd like to see some better specs than 500 MB used.

Anyone who knows about Linux will keep using Linux but the average Microsoft groupie will never move from it. QUOTE]

And the same can't be said for Linux users? LOL. I've read through most of these posts and it's amazing how many people have hammered MS7, yet HAVE NOT USED IT. God, why not write reviews on books or movies or vacation hot spots...all which you've never seen, visited, or read? That's pretty much what you're doing now.

Hmmm...suspected replies to my post.

My reply is, and what do you say those who claim the same thing about Linux? "I don't have to try Linux to know it's a second rate OS".

1. "I don't have to use MS7 to know it's crap".

No, not really. I just prefer to read balanced, informed posts. Rather than blanket statements of dislike, I want to read specifics as to why one doesn't like an OS based on their "exhaustive" personal use of the OS. No one on this thread has spent a second using MS7.

1. "You're just a MS fan boy"

cardinals_fan said: My CRUX installation is using 91 MB of RAM for Firefox, cplay, and conky. I'd like to see some better specs than 500 MB used.

for me, win 7 uses about 250. Windows generally has more features and better file-handling than minimal linux distros. Your setup may work for you, but you have to keep in mind that MS makes an OS for everyone whereas linux distros are pretty much a template and the user is expected to make it work for him/her.

NoSmokingBandit said: for me, win 7 uses about 250. Windows generally has more features and better file-handling than minimal linux distros. Your setup may work for you, but you have to keep in mind that MS makes an OS for everyone whereas linux distros are pretty much a template and the user is expected to make it work for him/her.

Depends on what "features" are. I only worry about my desktop, and Windows 7 looks like overkill.

cardinals_fan said: Depends on what "features" are. I only worry about my desktop, and Windows 7 looks like overkill.

Thats kinda what i was saying. People like to make cracks about windows using more resources, but most people would rather have their OS use a bit more ram than spend a few hours setting it up themselves. I have a laptop with 512mb ram and im going to install win7 on it (if it ever recognizes the disc. The dvd works on every computer but this one, i hope the drive isnt dying!). Yes, i could get a really lean Linux distro going on, but then i have to figure out how to make it sleep/wake correctly, find what packages are ok to take out and which ones will bork it up, find a theme that doesnt look like *** yet performs well, etc... I'd rather just deal with an extra 100mb going to the system.

I kind of find it bizarre to see people debating about using Linux or Windows 7 solely based on performance. The two OS's are so completely different to me, I don't see them as interchangeable parts. I guess if all you do with a system is launch a web browser it doesn't matter much what you run, but for what I do the idea of switching OS platforms just to shear off a bit of memory use or get a cooler taskbar seems outlandish. It's like debating between a diesel truck and a compact car based on the quality of the soundsystem.

lykwydchykyn said: I kind of find it bizarre to see people debating about using Linux or Windows 7 solely based on performance. The two OS's are so completely different to me, I don't see them as interchangeable parts. I guess if all you do with a system is launch a web browser it doesn't matter much what you run, but for what I do the idea of switching OS platforms just to shear off a bit of memory use or get a cooler taskbar seems outlandish. It's like debating between a diesel truck and a compact car based on the quality of the soundsystem.

My needs (browsing, music, photo editing, scripting, and chatting) can easily be performed on either Windows or Linux. Performance is very important to me because I don't want to stop and wait for the computer to catch up with my brain. When I'm working on something, things should be instantaneous.

What else should I base my comparison off?

I just installed Windows 7 in VirtualBox today. I was very pleased with the quick installation and the overall clean, snappy feel to the new operating system.

However, due to limitations caused by VirtualBox, I had no internet, couldn't use Aero, and couldn't select a widescreen screen resolution.

I'm going to wait until I have more time and install it on an actual partition.

I saw those words and I almost closed the web page and refused to read on, but my I decided to continue because I wanted to find out there reasoning behind what Windows 7 is a &#8220;Linux Killer&#8221;. As I read, I was scratching my head harder and harder. One part of the article stated that[INDENT]*&#8220;Windows 7 used less than half of the 1 GB of RAM on his Lenovo S10 netbook&#8221; * [/INDENT]The to me this is unheard of for Windows, maybe Microsoft finally has done something right for their desktop operating system. Are they trying to say that Linux is to bloated and won&#8217;t perform right on netbooks and only Microsoft stuff will run? HAH! He thinks he&#8217;s funny. The biggest issue I have with this article is the fact that he says it is a Linux killer. I have to disagree in full. Just because Windows 7 may be faster and can operate better on less powerful hardware does not mean in any way that people will be dying to go purchase it.

People choose Linux not only for the speed but also the usability, hardware support, the pretties of the user interface, and oh yeah did I mention it is free! There is no need to worry about license issues with Linux, the operating system and all of its applications are free. So I think this person is way off base to say that Microsoft is a Linux killer.

Linux has been outperforming Microsoft since Windows 98 in my opinion. Windows has been lacking for some time in the compatibility field as well has become more and more UN user friendly with XP not to mention Vista. So we go back to the beginning of the article. How is Windows 7 going to be a Linux Killer for netbooks? I don&#8217;t see how you justify it in the article.

Linux has been outperforming Microsoft since Windows 98 in my opinion. Windows has been lacking for some time in the compatibility field as well has become more and more UN user friendly with XP not to mention Vista. So we go back to the beginning of the article. How is Windows 7 going to be a Linux Killer for netbooks? I don’t see how you justify it in the article.

maybe because linux powered netbooks have a higher return rate than Windows ones (and XP is 7 years old...) ;). and all the market share Windows is losing goes to Apple, not to Linux distros. sad, but true

hahahaha windies7 ,guess if I had MS stock i'd be concerned ............... open source IS the future - think about it - collectively no huge corp can match the free unpaid efforts of collective individuals - the writing is on the wall me thinks.....look forward to more and more peeps questioning the 'price' they have to pay for a stable reliable customizable desktop?

just my thoughts....

Onwards and Upwards.

SnakeHips said: hahahaha windies7 ,guess if I had MS stock i'd be concerned ............... open source IS the future - think about it - collectively no huge corp can match the free unpaid efforts of collective individuals - the writing is on the wall me thinks.

Uh huh...how many years has Gimp been around-and why is it not the image editing gold standard?

Most people, when they need an OS for their machine (for whatever reason) don't 1st think of a FOSS OS-such as Linux--they always go to torrents to get pirated Windows.

The writing is on the wall--people have been declaring for many years the "coming of the Linux desktop", and we have yet to see it. Linux will continue to exist-thanks to FOSS devs and folks wanting to use it....Microsoft et al will continue to exist thanks to OEM agreements and such.

My linux laptop ubuntu 8.10, compiz, gnome, preload oo, etc.. is using less ram than a winxp home.

SnakeHips said: hahahaha windies7 ,guess if I had MS stock i'd be concerned ............... open source IS the future - think about it - collectively no huge corp can match the free unpaid efforts of collective individuals - the writing is on the wall me thinks.....look forward to more and more peeps questioning the 'price' they have to pay for a stable reliable customizable desktop?

just my thoughts....

Onwards and Upwards.

/me watches Microsoft cower in fear of the 1% marketshare

cardinals_fan said: My needs (browsing, music, photo editing, scripting, and chatting) can easily be performed on either Windows or Linux. Performance is very important to me because I don't want to stop and wait for the computer to catch up with my brain. When I'm working on something, things should be instantaneous.

What else should I base my comparison off?

It's not like you can't customize Windows. I try not to make pre-judgements about things.

SnakeHips said: hahahaha windies7 ,guess if I had MS stock i'd be concerned ............... open source IS the future - think about it - collectively no huge corp can match the free unpaid efforts of collective individuals - the writing is on the wall me thinks.....look forward to more and more peeps questioning the 'price' they have to pay for a stable reliable customizable desktop?

just my thoughts....

Onwards and Upwards.

The question of course is how long this will take. It won't happen until more people start thinking for themselves rather then listening to corporate advertising. Sadly given the success of advertising for as long as it's existed I doubt it will happen within the next few hundred years.

karellen said: maybe because linux powered netbooks have a higher return rate than Windows ones (and XP is 7 years old...) ;). and all the market share Windows is losing goes to Apple, not to Linux distros. sad, but true

Well the first part is true no doubt however,the second part of your statement is not true. As it has been proven not only on these forums,but also on many other forums people are leaving to Linux,FreeBSD,And OpenSolaris for a windows alternative,however about 80% or more does go to Mac.

SnakeHips said: hahahaha windies7 ,guess if I had MS stock i'd be concerned ............... open source IS the future - think about it - collectively no huge corp can match the free unpaid efforts of collective individuals - the writing is on the wall me thinks.....look forward to more and more peeps questioning the 'price' they have to pay for a stable reliable customizable desktop?

just my thoughts....

Onwards and Upwards.

I don't think I've ever seen Windows spelled like that. What dialect is it from?

size=1[/size]

2hot6ft2 said: The only thing windows seems to be capable of killing is windows itself. Vista being the current prime example of how windows only hurts itself. For myself once I do away with xp windows will be just a memory and that time is getting closer day by day the more linux I learn the more windows becomes a thing of the past.

I was a windows power user for 20 years, linux has won me over and I plan on staying with it. It simply works better for me.

lykwydchykyn said: If you like vista and find it stable, that's fine; but it has no bearing on the reality of whether or not it's a business failure. Obviously our anecdotal impressions of what's happing now and then are not the same, but from what I see in the news about rollout plans, and Microsoft's own curious marketing strategies, it's clear that Vista is not doing well as a product. That's really what matters to this discussion, IMO.

lykwydchykyn said: You keep defending Vista on a technical level, I'm not at all concerned with it's technical merits here. We're talking about it's success as a product. Assume for the sake of argument that it's the best OS in the universe. Doesn't matter here; we're talking about whether it has been a success as a commercial product.

Is Microsoft on top? Sure. But Vista is not, XP is, even 2 years after Vista's release, even six months after EOL for consumer sales (see: net apps data). This is a problem for them; and that seems evident as much from their actions as the data.

Fenris_rising said: I used windows from the win98, 2000, and XP. I Changed to linux around 6 months ago and have no need to ever fall back. It simply 'works' my new 3e 904hd now has 8.04.1 on it. I don't think M$ will ever kill linux. The only way possible is if they tied up the hardware. Linux should be allowed to continue to grow as it has done and let those who can, use it. Those who would like to, be gently nurtured. Those who wish to continue to use M$ software should be beaten regularly...........sorry, left to get on with it. Linux can only benefit from the honing and maturation of it's slow rise to the fore.

regards

Fenris

cabbiinc said: Selling as expected? No

Right product for the times? Maybe, depends on your needs. Do I love it? By no means. Is it going to kill Linux? :lolflag: Not in the least. I'm just saying that you can't get yourself caught up in all the negative posts about it. There's a lot of plusses to it. It's more stable than XP. It's more secure than XP (arguable). It's plug and play. Some people don't want to know what a Kernel is or what sudo means. They just want to buy a game and play it. More things are made for Vista every day, at a very rapid rate. Digital cameras just seam to love Vista compared to XP. And no I'm not just talking Jpegs here. Support for XP will be ending soon. That's going to force Vista to the top of the heap. But you can't say it's the worst flop in Windows history. I have yet to meet anyone who said that Windows ME was a good operating system. To me that's the worst that they did.

Wow, that's quite a heated discussion going on here. But I think I could quite identify what is M$'s Linux (and Mac/OpenSolaris/BSD/Minix/FreeDOS/Haiku, even Windoze) killer, and it's not windoze. It's a new "on the cloud" computing platform, with tightly tied-up hardware and a small ROM-loaded OS called Midori, this thing is gonna likely start with low pricing for the hardware and the online application services free. Then when the mayority is hooked on it, they'll very likely make all "offline, disk-based" computers (PC's, Mac's, Sun boxes, PS3's, etc) illegal (hence killing all OS's and apps that work on the tradicional offline way, including linux, Mac and BSD) and finally they'll very likelly raise the prices of the hardware, introduce monthly pricing for the software services (that's why the are going for "on the cloud" SaaS model) and monitor/modify user's data (which is stored on the M$'s servers along with the apps users use online, there will be no local storage on the computers, forcing everyone to use the online apps and store files online, and the hardware and OS will be made such that it boots and connects to M$'s servers). This whole scheme is very likelly going to work b/c M$ did a very clever thing. They set windows up for catastrofic failure from as early as XP. The activation and WGA were put both as early testbed on their new systems meant to automatically lock the users out of their apps/data the moment they stop paying the monthly fees, and as a way to introduce frustration on the user experience. Vista was made the way it was made to get ppl to hate it (and 7) and stick to XP, and by the time XP is slated to be EOL'd M$ comes out with their new platform, the consumers out of their frustrations, and XP's nearing demise will very likelly embrace the new platform, setting the final part of M$'s plan in motion and then, when they realize (if they do at all) what was M$'s plan. It's going to be too late for them. And the worse part is that it will be very bad for us too since we can't use linux in a diskless computer that only connects to M$ and cannot be taken apart and modded, and PC's (this includes Mac's, Sparc's and PS3's) will likelly become illegal as well.

BTW: I learned this when my friends and me drank up a MCSE student at my college and made him spill the beans. Slick as only my friends and me can be on this. BTW2: I don't use windows, I'm right now on Sabayon (preparing a GoboLinux LiveDVD with the liveCD building script since gobolinux doesn't have a official x64 iso yet) and Debian kfreebsd.

karellen said: maybe because linux powered netbooks have a higher return rate than Windows ones (and XP is 7 years old...) ;). and all the market share Windows is losing goes to Apple, not to Linux distros. sad, but true

Gosh your smart, sometimes I have to check to make sure your post is not mine. We seem to think a like.

jrusso2 said: Gosh your smart, sometimes I have to check to make sure your post is not mine. We seem to think a like.

:o the voices told me to ;)