The momentum for Windows 7 continues to build, and it seems so far that Microsoft is doing a good job at redeeming the Windows name after Vista. Windows 7 is fast, seemingly very stable, application compatibility seems good, and the reaction from the tech community and media is far more favorable than it has been in the past couple of years.
So the technical side of Windows 7 is going pretty well, and we haven’t seen much out of marketing yet, but there have been many discussions online about how much Windows 7 will actually cost consumers. Some have suggested it should be free, which is quite ridiculous, and others speculate it will be similar to what Windows Vista was.
One of my biggest displeasures with Windows Vista wasn’t so much on the technical side, as it was with the actual price and the lack of license bundles. With some Vista licenses averaging out around $200, it just wasn’t economically feasible to outfit my entire house with copies of Vista, which I would have liked to have done. I have roughly 5 PC’s in my house, so give or a take a bit, it could have easily cost over $1000 to get my home setup with Vista.
Now I certainly don’t expect Windows 7 to be free, but I’m now wondering how Microsoft will set the pricing for new and upgrade purchases. I really hope it reasonably priced, because going too high will have a real negative impact in my opinion. I would like to see a simple upgrade from either Vista or XP for $99, with a 3-license family pack for $150. I think that would be very competitive, and get even more people to upgrade.
What do you think?
The oversimplified, snarky answer is implied in your shorthand for Microsoft (M$): they are a large, formal organization with publicly traded stock at the center of their finances. They are under unrelenting pressure to produce accounting numbers that look good to Wall Street.
As we are all painfully learning more about these days, the high finance crowd tends to emphasize the appearance of short-term success over consistent evidence of long-term value. When you put that general principle into software-biz terms, you get products that are forced onto the market before they are ready because a majority of the final decision-makers care more about their 'scorecard numbers' than they do about the true quality of the software that they're overseeing.
You can look at Stardock's work in the game market as a case study of how things can be different when a software shop is led by a working dev who only needs to answer to his customers and employees. (OK, maybe to a banker or three--but business debts with banks are profoundly different from the obligations a firm assumes by publicly issuing stock.) Stardock games are released when the devs are ready to put their work in public. More importantly, they stand behind their software both as responsive bug-fixers and artisans who are proud enough of their own work to keep offering substantial updates based on customer response well after RTM.
The way it is now, I feel like I'm renting my OS.
Windows 7, Free? Don't be ridiculous. Windows isn't open-source. It shouldn't be free. Microsoft would be losing out on a lot of money if W7 was free. I honestly expect it to be priced around what Vista was, depending on how many versions come out. I hope they go back to only two versions, and maybe one for handheld devices, but two mainstream versions, like XP's Home & Professional. A Home version should cost around $149 and Professional, about $199 to $249, for a complete version. Upgrades would be about $50 to $100 cheaper. If W7 is almost exactly like Vista, it wouldn't be worth even $100. On the other hand if W7 is just as good or better than XP, it would be worth every penny.
OK...how about $10 per improvement/brand new feature?
Someone has never read the bible... mmmhmm.. I suggest you start with the story of Job, and how god and satan got over an argument over the reason people love god. (note that satan never actually lifts a finger to harm job, God is the one doing it to prove a point to satan... so either satan outsmarted god, or god is an ass)
Well Windows server 2003 came out right after XP. So I wouldn't be surprised if there is a server version to be released within a year and do not count that as a new OS.
If you count NT/2000/server 2003 as its own string of OS's seperate from windows 3/95/98/ME/XP then the average is 2-3 years between OS versions (they are 1992/1995/1998/2000/2002 respectivly) I expect this that Windows 7-8 gap will be the same 2 years. Initial versions of Longhorn (that became vista) came out in 2005-2006 again meeting this 2-3 year gap and making 2-3 year to windows 7 still sync up. Just long horn wasn't remotely stable until 2007 when they FINALLY made public release. However you see the link is still there. 2000 (me) > 2001/2002 (XP) > 2005 (Longhorn: Not released) > 2007 (vista) > 2009 (win 7) you still have a fairly consistant about 2 year gap between OS.
Alternatively, the initial versions of XP came out in 2001 I believe (as I just looked it up. I remember it being 2002, but so goes memory), meaning that the ME-XP gap could be said to be 1 year, which would be similar to Vista (spring 2008)-Win7. ME was something "new" and XP was this same idea "but done right". If it follows the ME to XP/ Vista to Win7 tradition then we won't see a WIN 8 for like 4 years, and it will suck. Then WIN9 will come out about a year later and be good.
EDIT: -the point is not to growl an MS for releasing on a schedule. Its not JUST a scheme, they follow a fairly consistant development cycle and since I don't see longhorn on my system (or any other) they obviously arn't so stupid to release unless they think its something worth releasing. As a tech-support agent, I defend vista for being much more stupid-user friendly and was a very good step in the right direction. I don't use it myself, but I feel that most of the changes it makes are very logical and the new interface I think is an improvement if I can get over the fact that "its not like it used to be"
My favorite quote on that "Just because we've always done it, doesn't mean its not stupid". Vista was an attempt to fix something broken (office is a better example, the classic file/edit/view toolbar is dumb / out of date and should be done away for something better )
Well I think it was more about "fruit of wisdom" in general. I do not believe an "apple" is a 100% accurate translation.
That being said, I do not believe he would use Leopard because Leopard has problems with WEP-open vs. WEP-shared security for some reason. Not as much as 10.3 did, but more than 10.4 did (in my experiance). I can't imagine he would use something that can't consistantly connect to a 802.11 standard (no matter how lame WEP is).
I think his son would be a great person to have as teh head of my IT department .. . . . .
becaus.. . . ..
... .
Jesus saves.
Clearly he's from the Dark Ages....saving on floppies.....
....can't have much to save, either ....
He's Jesus.
He can fit however much onto a floppy he wants.
LAMO++
True, Zu ..... But Moses Invests!
Typo?
I don't think so ....
Not really.
God has to play by His own rules,
i'm currently running a copy of the Windows 7 beta and i'm quite dissapointed so far. OK i kinda like the new startmenu but the OS allways crashes my (fully updated) SoaSE (with newest WHQL-drivers from Nvidia) and a bunch of other apps i use on a daily basis.. either they manage to get it working properly until the final release or i'll just have to stick with Vista for a couple more years.
What?? A beta with *problems*? No way
I've been running the Win 7 beta for a fortnight now and I've not stuck a major issue with it yet.... and that's the 64 bit version. All my hardware drivers loaded without issue, except for my Eye 110 webcam (no matter, I have Creative that works fine), and all my software/apps, with the exception of WB, works as well also. So as far as betas go, Win 7 is the better OS beta, with respect to stability, reliability and compatability, than Vista was by far
attempting to install driver based software (like daemon tools or the clone drive) pretty much exploded windows 7. others are also not compatible, and using IE8 beta in it means that netflix doesn't work with it either. Also while you are told it "uses the same drivers as vista", attempting to install a vista driver pretty much ruins it. nVidia and ATI and the like are all providing the latest updates to their drivers for windows 7 via windows update only at the moment, so no need to download and install things manually.
Overyall its a very nice beta, but I went back to windows vista 64bit and will remain there unitl more programs support windows 7
@ taltamir... nVidia drivers for Vista work in Win 7, I installed the 181.20 geforce drivers for Vista from the nVidia home page no problem
Also, have you tried installing your non-working apps as 'Administrator and/or using the compatability feature when right clicking the installer? I found that I needed to do this with the Creative apps that came with my X-Fi installation disc when first installing my sound card, but not with the recent updates from the Creative home page.
Gobble Gobble goo and Gobble Gobble giggle, I wish windows 7 only cost a nickel.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
