Comments on: Microsoft Windows 7 ‘wishlist’ leaked!

By: Frank Terry

Frank Terry — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 22:35:21 +0000

The one thing I don’t see, that is the main reason I’m still using XP, is that the new format is designed to force you to purchase all new software applications. Why can’t Microsoft do what Apple does, and let the new OS run the programs that ran so well on the OLD OS??????

By: master

master — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:52:09 +0000

Great!! OSX has all these features! These are what people are looking out for!! Then i wonder why there is more windows Pc out there than mac!! Mac and linux are for people technically sound with a computer!!

but there are more common people who jus want to use the Pc for office, people who jus wanna play Games!! And what caters these needs – Windows!!

I used linux for two days – cant find one shit reason y i must use it – the third day it was gone!!

Microsoft always gives wat people want!! Xp rocked, vista rox, Windows 7 will rock!!

By: Heather Horn

Heather Horn — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:04:11 +0000

Windows 7? How about we call it Windows XP 2 and call it good?

By: Jeff Dickey

Jeff Dickey — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:22:43 +0000

There’s one reason I’m looking forward to Windows 7: I fully expect it will provide an even bigger boost to my business of migrating businesses away from Microsoft to stuff that both works reliably and fits their needs (instead of the other way around). True statistics gained over the last 15 months:
- Vista costs about 9x as much to support as Mac OS X, and about 6x as much as Linux (hardware makes a difference, folks)
- The mean productivity gain from migrating users from XP to Mac OS X after 3 months (with a sample size of ~4,500 users) is 74%. Moving from XP to Vista slightly *decreases* productivity in a corporate environment

I’ve been developing for and supporting Windows literally as long as there’s been a “Windows”; about five years ago, I decided that a) I really much prefer using the computer to get work done reliably, and b) enough other people do that I should be able to turn that into a business opportunity.

Microsoft, as of Vista, is the T. Rex that’s been shot in the head with an M109; the body’s set to keep running for a few kilometers before it falls over. Don’t stand too close when it does; you’ll be just as dead if the carcass falls on you (destroying those business processes you’ve ceded control of to you-know-who) than if you’d “merely” been eaten by the Beast (processes operating but unpredictable due to outside events/inputs).

Bring on the Windows 7 Kool-Aid!

By: pasufi

pasufi — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:49:38 +0000

I used Linux Knoppix, which is the only one that I could boot up from a CD, without trying to understand “Mars-speak”! And that is about it! When I’ve tried to connect peripherals or connect to internet or my home network – well, need I say more?
Linux is cheap and cheerful, well suited for those who understand the “Mars-speak”! But for those of us who prefer things working out of the box, well Windows is still a better bet than most!
As far as Antivirus, Updates etc are concerned, Live Onecare is very efficient and cost-effective when compared to the competitors!
And Mac? I still don’t understand its file storage system, keyboard shortcuts and much of its technical jargon! With any Mac system at least twice as pricey (monopoly manufacturer) as a comparable Windows machine (effect of free market competition), and the fact that it is unlikely that I will walk into any organisation with widespread Mac use, I have no incentive to buy one in the future!

By: pasufi

pasufi — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:22:20 +0000

I used Mac OS IX for 6 months on a G4 at work in 2006 – my conclusions:

1. Crashed more often than my home Windows XP (on an Athlon 64 platform).
2. Not intuitive (unlike claims by Mac Lovers) – has to be learnt and memorised!
3. Bland display – boring!
4. Slow (contrary to claims)!
5. Expensive rip-off!

You have to be a nerd to be able to work on a Mac or a Linux. You can keep your Mac. I am buying 3 new computers this year – and they will all be Windows!

By: presario

presario — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:22:16 +0000

Really, If anyone with any sense and decency would review Microsoft, then the public would find out that OS X and likewise UNIX systems have MORE high risk security vulnerabilities than its Microsoft counterparts. The only reason that people think that Unix based systems (linux, and anything since Mac OS X because it runs a Unix derrived Kernel) are any better is because they have, well, ill be generous here and say that they have about 5% of the market share. If Unix and its derrived systems are so “good” as half you ass holes say they are, then why do they still have 5% or less of the market share? Any answers you may e-mail to ahodacsek@gmail.com.
Ill be waiting for your responses!

By: Doodee

Doodee — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:40:02 +0000

Thanks for sharing

By: jon

jon — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:28:06 +0000

ok, i have a request, FAST (i dont mean support faster hardware made to run a heavy system; but an efficient OS that will not consume system resources and be annoying [allow] or [deny] USB mouse how can i click that?) Honestly XP runs all hardware (except no DX10) and runs faster than vista, requiring a new platform to use new software is just wrong, specialy since you have to get new hardware to make it run HALF as fast as previous systems. When xp first came out, and upon installing i read the comment “fastest operating system yet” BULL$H!7 my 486 (from 1992 boots windows 3.1 in about 13-16 seconds, where as xp takes about 60. vista (i refused to buy; but on a new PC i saw it take about 30 seconds to boot. (fancy SATA hdd)
Why must new os waste resources and time loading up CRAP that isnt wanted? (damn small linux is spartanic, fast minimalistic, gets the job done, yet still can look verry nice even with VERRY limited resources)

PS. XP was Way more difficult to get running than any operating system i have installed. it was a serious pain, clean install booted to a black screen. its default driver for my vid card wouldnt work, compounded with other various problems. Until windows can run faster than WINE, im sticking with linux… (well, i guess since i already paid for xp, and went though the pain of installation, i may keep it on its own partition… but havent had the displeasure of HAVING to use it, save for at school… (with my linux flash drive… ^^ i can be winbloze free!)

By: MicroHead

MicroHead — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:48:34 +0000

Microsoft won’t include antivirus software in Windows because that would violate the antitrust agreement that they have. The two major software markets in terms of revenue generation are games and antivirus software. If Microsoft were to include antivirus software, an antitrust suit would follow quickly.