Windows 7 powers Microsoft profits up 35%

Tin (Cornerstone member):

If MS think Windows Phone 7 is going to be a big hit like Windows 7 was/is, then they are completely misguided. Win7 is popular only because Vista is a piss of crap. Windows Mobile 6.x is perfectly servicable, so there's not going to be any reason for people to excitedly upgrade.

Anonymousewiuu2945u389 (User):

If WM6.x is perfectly servicable, then why is the market share nosediving as it is?

Ron6 (New user):

What a marketing campaign can do...
As we can see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows
they updated the kernel from NT6.0 (Vista) to NT6.1 and called it "7"...
And a lot of us buy it because it _looks_ new and so much better than Vista...

straker135 (User):

they updated the kernel from NT6.0 (Vista) to NT6.1 and called it "7"...

Ron6 Microsoft did that because to change the kernel to 7.0 would have broken a lot of third party programs that check the Windows kernel version number as part of their install routines, and wont install on a version they haven't been written for. Microsoft was, so they said, trying to avoid other vendors having to upgrade their software.

Having said that, and ignoring the significant number of core changes in Win 7, most do consider 7 as 'Vista done right'. Somewhat analagous to XP SP2 being XP done right, although in my opinion there were so many kernel changes to XP SP2, mostly to enhance the security model, that Microsoft could legitmately have given it a new OS name and bumped the version number back then... I'm glad they didn't and we got it for free.

AlexF (User):

Vista SP1 was/is a perfect OS. Windows 7 is Vista SP2.5 (with a cosmetically improved explorer.exe), so, it's no wonder Windows 7 is a huge success.

Tin (Cornerstone member):

Quoting AlexF:
Vista SP1 was/is a perfect OS.


Sure. If you redefine perfect. That delay when you click (right or left) on the network icon in the system tray for example - perfection in motion there. I could list all the other things Vista regularly pisses me off with, but we'd be here all day.

AlexF (User):

You should get a Mac instead - a much simpler interface for beginners to handle.

Raindog (User):

Quoting AlexF:
a much simpler interface for beginners to handle.

Certainly appears your are qualified to make such an assessment for that demographic.

Tin (Cornerstone member):

I'm thinking the same deal - Not sure why he (or she?) thinks I'm a beginner. MS software has a bug that (s)he doesn't seem to notice and that makes those who do notice it beginners? I suspect it's the other way around.

Raindog (User):

Quoting Tin:
Not sure why he (or she?) thinks I'm a beginner.

Be careful before you take on these kids Tin, some uf them have assembled their own clones n everythink. :)

Tin (Cornerstone member):

Quoting Ron6:
they updated the kernel from NT6.0 (Vista) to NT6.1 and called it "7"...


They also started counting at like 3.something. And they have been forgetting to up the number for minor updates (like SP1 for XP probably should have been 5.11, and SP 2 should have gone 5.2).
And let's not forget that Windows Server seems to get the matching versions to what they base it on, but often has major improvements.

Sp33d d3mon (User):

Well, Windows 7 wouldn't be so popular if Windows XP 64-bit wasn't a complete crock of s**t! Some of us have more than 4GB of RAM ;)

Raindog (User):

Go ahead MS you claim a post GFC increase in business spending as a boost to your sales. You can believe it even if most of those Win 7 licenses will run XP for the life of the hardware. Kid yourselves that the increased growth in desktop and notebook sales is actually a swing to Win7, we wont mind.

Keep kidding yourselves that anyone other than the fan-boys is happy with the price and development cycles of MS wares.

AlexF (User):

Quoting Raindog:
most of those Win 7 licenses will run XP for the life of the hardware

C'mon that's just a stupid comment. Windows 7 can run on late XP machines (I run on P4 2.2Ghz with 2GB - max supported by MB) and it runs fine. Nobody with half a brain should be running XP as a productivity machine.
Don't mind snide remarks from Linux users (since Linux as a consumer desktop OS is dead), but let's be real, Vista and 7 are generation ahead of XP in every way.

Raindog (User):

Quoting AlexF:
C'mon that's just a stupid comment.

Oh really how many business networks do you maintain? Or is this your entry in a stupid comment challenge?


Quoting AlexF:
Windows 7 can run on late XP machines

And what has that got to do with anything. I can certainly run on new hardware, but with the average new business machine running 2G of RAM XP will run a hell of a lot better, Not to mention the front end cost premium of supporting a later OS.

Quoting AlexF:
Nobody with half a brain should be running XP as a productivity machine.

So all those IT departments are wrong? They should be listening to you? It looks like you're the one suffering the cranial limitations.


Quoting AlexF:
Don't mind snide remarks from Linux users

Oh your onto a new tangent now?


Quoting AlexF:
but let's be real

Is this in regard to bedroom networking?


Quoting AlexF:
Vista and 7 are generation ahead of XP in every way.

Every way except business take up that is?
Or did you actually mean any way?

Raindog shakes his head in disbelief.

Tin (Cornerstone member):

Quoting AlexF:
since Linux as a consumer desktop OS is dead


Growth usually is an indication of life, not death. Before making your own "snide remarks" about things, perhaps check if your comments are valid. For example, check this graph:
http://www.berkeleylug.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/screenshot13.png
Sure it's only a reported 1% market share, but it's rising, which means it's not dead.


Quoting AlexF:
Vista and 7 are generation ahead of XP in every way.


"Every" is a strong word. I can think of a number of ways Vista is a step back from XP. Like it's rather lame behaviour with networks, or the pathetic user interface decision to hide the fact that explorer is still loading file lists.
Win7 on the other hand I will agree is very close to being better than XP in every way. It still suffers from a few of the issues Vista had, but they are now quite rarely seen.

AlexF (User):

Quoting Tin:
Sure it's only a reported 1% market share, but it's rising, which means it's not dead.
And how much of that 1% is Windows OS replacements (for everyday productivity computing) rather than a curiousity/bragging-fed installation on a second partition? Whether people it or not (rather than number of installation) as a necessity determines whether its dead or alive. [BTW. I use the word 'productivity' loosely.]

Win7 on the other hand ...
I see no siginificant functional differences (between Vista and 7) except aggresively and deliberately delaying services starts at login (... 5 minutes after login, it's the same OS with a different explorer.exe). Actually, it's exactly what MS calls it, a "0.1" version increment (or I'd call, "SP2.5"), re-marketed.

Tin (Cornerstone member):

Quoting AlexF:
Whether people it or not (rather than number of installation) as a necessity determines whether its dead or alive.

I think you a word there...
The linked graph was created from data based on web site usage. It wasn't based on installs (how the heck would you count that anyway?). If people dual booting were getting counted, they would likely also be counted as Windows users.
There is also questions of whether some of the Linux numbers are lower due to people changing agent IDs to get into stupidly coded websites.

Quoting AlexF:
I see no siginificant functional differences (between Vista and 7) except aggresively and deliberately delaying services starts at login


Ummm, try looking a little bit harder. It might all be based on Vista, but it's a huge improvement. Clicking the network icon now gets a menu immediately instead of having to wait 20 minutes, and UAC now has an option to not make you think the computer just died/rebooted.

AlexF (User):

Quoting Tin:
The linked graph was created from data based on web site usage. It wasn't based on installs (how the heck would you count that anyway?). If people dual booting were getting counted, they would likely also be counted as Windows users.


I am not debating the 1% - I think it's fair enough. My point is that hopefully there would have been more than 1% to achieve some kind of critical mass. Without it, Linux as consumer productivity desktop is (already) dead. Anyways, how did become Linux vs Windows thread - what a waste of time.

Quoting Tin:
It might all be based on Vista, but it's a huge improvement. Clicking the network icon now gets a menu immediately instead of having to wait 20 minutes, and UAC now has an option to not make you think the computer just died/rebooted.

Nowhere to look - never had either of these issues. Actually, network startup is slower on my Windows 7.

Me In Oz (User):

Quoting Raindog:
anyone other than the fan-boys is happy with the price and development cycles of MS wares.

Retailers and OEM suppliers are also very happy with the crapload of money made from this cycle and strategy ........ [insert maniacal laughter].

Raindog (User):

Quoting Me In Oz:
are also very happy with the crapload of money made from this cycle and strategy .......

You missed quoting the bit about kidding yourself. Still if you see the big money is in blue led fan and retail boxed OSs then may you be very happy at the shallow end. :)