Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Microsoft Details Shift From Entourage to Outlook for Next Major Release, Announces Office 2008 Business Edition
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My disclaimer was mainly meant to forestall the inevitable deluge of MS Fan Boi-ism (MSFB). Rather than face up to the many flaws within Windows, and accept that Vista was released prematurely (and to raise $$), MSFB people will hold Win7 up as the best thing since Moses hoisted a snake on a stick.
And yes, we are in wait-and-see. On Win7 specifically, and MS direction in general.
By the time they make another OS, they will be too small to be relevant...worry not.
unlike apple making "under the hood changes" and charging $$$ for it. windows 7 is a legitimate new OS.
That $$$ is $30 for people who have 10.5. And it includes some pretty major under-the-hood changes.
If "under-the-hood" weren't important, then nobody would pay extra for BMWs; we'd all be happy with 4-cylinder, 70 horsepower cars, right? The Snow Leopard "tweaks" make everything faster, better, simpler. It delivers an awesome amount of improvement for the cost of a premium DVD movie.
By comparison, yes Windows 7 is perhaps a more significant upgrade, over... Vista? All 7 really does is deliver on the promises originally touted for Vista, in a hope that people will finally start moving away from the nearly-decade-old XP. And Microsoft is charging $$$+$$$+$$ for that.
2008?
can someone please inform microsoft that the current year is 2009 and its more than half over already.
can someone please inform microsoft that the current year is 2009 and its more than half over already.
can someone please inform microsoft that the current year is 2009 and its more than half over already.
Sure. That's why they're working on Office 2010.
Are you sure? Is it really "new and improved?"
I'm getting SL for $10 and some change. For that, I will get an ever better user experience. For my other Mac, which I ordered last January, I will pay $29 for that upgrade.
How big is the break MS is giving people?
Full version of XP Pro was about $200, more or less. Add Vista, in one configuration or another, let's say that was $250. Then, to "upgrade" to Win7, you need to pay up another, let's say $250. Depends on which of the 4/6/8 versions you start with... In any event, this Windows user has paid at least $700 for OS. I'll throw the XP back, as it came with his PC, so $500 cash out.
A Mac user bought a Mac. It came with Tiger. He then bought Leopard for $129. All updates have been free. Then comes Snow Leopard, for $29. That's $158, no worries about versions, driver incompatibilities, or all the rest of the cerebral fornication MS users submit to.
$158 versus $500 or more. For that money, which OS would you prefer to run????
Yeah, MS is taking care of their adherents very well, aren't they?
**Note: Dollar values are for example purposes only.
Faulty argument. Most Windows users buy the OS with their machine, only about 10% upgrade.
As for 'cerebral fornication' and hardware issues I imagine PPC owners may have something to say about that.
There are still PLENTY of people who use Windows XP and refuse to update. They don't see a need to. For them, it's a mature and stable OS. Not as many people upgrade as you might think.
It isn't. Because Microsoft says it isn't.
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9117399
"[Windows 7], it's Windows Vista, a lot better," said Ballmer during a
45-minute question-and-answer session hosted by a pair of Gartner
Inc. analysts at the research firm's annual Symposium ITxpo in Orlando
today. The interview was later posted as a webcast on the Gartner
site.
"Windows Vista is good; Windows 7 is Windows Vista with cleanup in user
interface [and] improvements in performance," Ballmer said.
Sounds a lot like a big Vista service pack (sorely needed) in the guise of something "new."
Windows 7 is no more a "legitimate new OS" than Snow Leopard. Unlesss of course you like to call fixing something that should have been done right in the first place (years ago) "legitimate."
Makes sense. Vista is broken. Release something else that is a fixed Vista, repackage it as a new OS and presto! "Legitimate new OS"!
At least the taskbar will suck less this time around.
The Windows system didn't come with an "Apple tax", so the user probably paid $500 (or more) less for hardware.
Microsoft needs to emphasize that Windows 6.1 is very compatible with Windows 6.0, when talking to the hardware OEM and software ISV communities. If software (including drivers) works on Vista in native mode, there's a 99% chance the same bits will work without problems in Windows7.
So, do consider the audience and context - Ballmer was talking at a Gartner IT symposium. Of course he would focus on the compatibility.
Beta is already dead, the "poison pill" timers have gone off. But RC is available and free until March.
You're going to see things drift away from RC compatibility, though. Honest people who need their computers will buy the full release. Cheapskate hackers will put up with the pain of defeating the timeouts to run an out-of-date system for free. Meh.
This still amazes me. Has there been another time Microsoft, Apple, or anyone else offered free, unlimited use of a pre-release OS like with Win 7? Sure, it expires next year, but holy cow! Free use of new software to the general public for how long? About 10 months, right?
Not only is this OS leaps and bounds better than Vista and XP, it's an amazing deal and marketing genius from Redmond.
All Mac OSes used to be free, up until 8 or something. Not pre-release-beta just free. And IIRC, Mac OS X Server 1.0 was free.
But a free pre-release OS is kind of a cruel joke for end-users (though great for IT departments and developers). It is admittedly underdeveloped and could destroy your everything. And if you don't pony up for the release version, you're stuck trying to downgrade back to your old OS.
The Windows system didn't come with an "Apple tax", so the user probably paid $500 (or more) less for hardware.
Huh. The mythical "apple tax" thing again. Assuming that theory is real, under your scenario, you just broke even. Which OS would you prefer to run, again?
If you think the price of the OS isn't included in the new hardware.... well, you'd be wrong.
Then you bring up PPC, alluding to Snow Leopard dropping support for PPC chips... Let me see... you say it's OK and expected for people to buy new hardware, in order to get Vista and then again in order to get Win7.
But PPC users? No, they shouldn't have to replace their hardware.
Double standard there, eh?
But since a $300 netbook comes with Windows, we get an idea of what the cost of the OS really is.
And it obviously is not the single unit retail price that is often quoted here.
Big load of BS here.
Vista's practical hardware requirements (not the minimum quoted by MS, but the practical) left a lot of older XP systems out of the club.
Almost any XP system a year old would take Vista upgrade no hassle. Two years old, bump the RAM and the video card (if you want Aero). Three or four years old - a new system is probably the better option.
But, Win7 needs fewer resources than Vista. Almost nobody would need to replace a Vista system to run Windows 7. That's between FUD and pure lies to say they would.
I don't think that any $4000 workstation from 3 years ago won't run Windows 7 just fine.
I see plenty of comparisons of the retail prices but the OEM ones are easily forgotten.
Not to mention Apple's hardware margins subsidize the software.
batchtaster look what just showed up.
In other words... pointing out the fundamental difference between these incomparable upgrades.
Windows 7 could be called "Vista Working Version." It is just a re-release of Vista, for a hefty fee, which now (hopefully) delivers on the original promise of Vista.
10.6 is a massive rebuild of the fundamental underlying architecture of OS X, making it fully 64-bit and fully multi-core, while making huge improvements to graphics and multimedia capabilities.
It is no surprise at all that 7 would work on the same hardware as Vista, and that Snow Leopard would have more modern requirements. They are completely different kinds of upgrades.
64-bit is not the standard in either Windows or Macs, but it has been spottily available in both for quite some time. The difference is that in all future Macs, it will be the de facto standard.