Microsoft has acknowledged for the first time, that linux is a direct threat to the Windows client, naming Red Hat and Canonical (Primary sponsor of Ubuntu) as competitors to it's Windows client business in it's annual report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. As stated in the filing by Microsoft, "Client faces strong competition from well-established companies with differing approaches to the PC market, competing commercial software products, including variants of Unix, are supplied by competitors such as Apple, Canonical, and Red Hat."
The acknowledgment of this points out that linux has finally gained ground, and that it now puts up a viable fight against the Windows client. Microsoft is attributing this to the growing trend of netbook PC's - ultra low-powered notebook pc's that are mainly used to surf the internet.
Microsoft notes that Linux has gained what Microsoft tries to attribute as "some acceptance" as an alternative OS to Windows, in particular in "emerging markets" where "competitive pressures lead OEMs to reduce costs and new, lower-price PC form-factors gain adoption." Microsoft also makes mention in the report that Linux was originally not a viable desktop OS competitor for Windows, but now has become one.
The report goes on to point out that even it's own OEM partners, including Hewlett-Packard and Intel are now providing support for Linux, something which was previously unprecedented.
Rob Helm, director of research for the direction of Microsoft wrote: "Netbooks opened Microsoft to the possibility that some other OS could get its grip on the desktop, however briefly, now it's alert to that possibility going forward." Helm also mentions that "Microsoft would like the netbook to go away and be replaced by lightweight laptops -- ones with long battery life that cost enough to justify running full Windows on them".
Before this report was filed, Microsoft only noted viable competition from Red Hat to it's server business - the Windows Server family, in it's yearly reports.
Microsoft's previous Windows client release, Windows Vista was too resource heavy for netbook PC's and was not used, but instead, Microsoft's 8 year old desktop OS, Windows XP was widely used on netbook PC's, for it's speed and stability. With Windows 7's release on October 22nd, will come a SKU geared specifically towards "low powered" notebooks, called "Windows 7 Starter Edition".
Maybe they can consider the netbook platform an opportunity for Windows Mobile to evolve.
Yeah, I wonder how long that really took. I'd be curious to know. They did that though to limit the use cases of Starter Edition, so I can understand the importance to them of that.
Copyleft of course. Just look at the music industry and its abject failure to enforce copyright. It's getting harder and harder for companies to charge directly for software when so many equivalent alternatives exist for free. This revolution starts with a migration from sold software to free software, then moves to the abolition of software copyrights and patents entirely.
Our brains resist change, and this is perfectly natural, however, using the Ubuntu GUI these days is almost identical to windows. The major difference is in package management where instead of hunting down software on the internet (which you can also do), it's all integrated into the system, and in my humble opinion, this makes things much easier. In addition, installing drivers is virtually unheard now because of the number of devices supported under the newest kernels.
We all have to learn new mobile phone software, so I can't see how you find Ubuntu so hard to learn.
No offense, but very few people use dial-up modems these days. And don't blame Ubuntu if your device isn't supported, blame the manufacturer, for they should provide either the driver or the specs with which to develop a driver.
Unless you are talking about an adsl modem or cable modem? In those cases it's much easier just to buy a router with a built in modem. Most if not all adsl ISP's these days give you a free router modem when you sign up.
Are you trolling or something? There are thousands of free packages you can install just by looking in the add/remove program categories (Ubuntu/Kubuntu). Sheesh that is one of the most inaccurate statements I've ever read, and I've read some pretty fantastical F.U.D about GNU/Linux.
http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download
There you go, select your nearest location and click the big 'Begin download' button. Once that is downloaded go here: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/BurningIsoHowto for instructions on how to burn the ISO to a cd/dvd. Then once it's burned reboot and you can either run Ubuntu in a live environment to check it out before installing, or install it there and then. If the cd/dvd doesn't boot automatically from the bios of your machine, I believe you can press F12 to access a boot menu when your computer starts, and from that menu select the cd/dvd drive. If you have any problems I'm sure lots of people will provide help. That is of course assuming you aren't just trolling
If you find Ubuntu a little plain and prefer more eye candy, might I suggest you try Kubuntu:
http://www.kubuntu.org/
It's far superior to vista, especially if you enable compositing. 3D multi-desktop cube, and some very cool effects. In fact compared to Kubuntu, vista is like something from the 90's.
upon install just opening programs in the menu's made it unresponsive, on a Dual core laptop with 4 gigs of ram. Then it would just not open some menu items and need a reboot. Hibernate would cause it to not boot back up and would need to use recovery mode. It also felt a lot slower than vista. Being free doesn't justify the hassle that Linux is. If its that dysfunctional on a fresh install i wouldn't dare touch it for long periods of time.
I never had slowdowns on Vista, except wehn running 100s of programs. I think you's trolling.
Are you sure you're replying to the correct comment? He said nothing about the registry, so not sure where that came from. His slowdown is probably from a memory leak in some ass-tastic OSS cludge that refused to exit cleanly, and with the crap GUI, has virtually no realistic way of alerting the user about such.
And if you have never heard of the myriad problems with sleep and hibernation in Linux...you've just had your head in the sand for the past decade. Can't help you there.
But freeze-ups? Ubuntu? Immediately after a clean install? Either you have an unusual hardware set-up, or an imminent hardware failure, or...
...well, or you meant to type Kubuntu.
/o ya, i said it
But freeze-ups? Ubuntu? Immediately after a clean install? Either you have an unusual hardware set-up, or an imminent hardware failure, or...
...well, or you meant to type Kubuntu.
/o ya, i said it
nope just reg ubuntu
and my laptop runs vista just fine
i just dont see the linux hype, yeah its customizable, but thats it, it doesnt do much else that windows cant thats for sure
Sure, people have problems with Linux sleeping, but so do I with my brand new HP and Vista, and my brand new at the time Dell from a year ago and XP.
upon install just opening programs in the menu's made it unresponsive, on a Dual core laptop with 4 gigs of ram. Then it would just not open some menu items and need a reboot. Hibernate would cause it to not boot back up and would need to use recovery mode. It also felt a lot slower than vista. Being free doesn't justify the hassle that Linux is. If its that dysfunctional on a fresh install i wouldn't dare touch it for long periods of time.
I take it you are using a laptop? Perhaps with an integrated graphics chip? It sound to me like you need to enable the graphics card proprietary driver (why can't they make them open source sigh..), or your chip is poorly supported. ATI chips/card work badly because ATI refuses to make decent drivers. Nvidia is usually the best.
To check what Ubuntu is using run: glxinfo | grep renderer, and glxinfo | grep direct to determine if you are using 3d acceleration.
I guess you haven't seen compiz in action then? Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h905pHzkXPw
And that's just eye candy. The integrated software repository with thousands of free applications alone is enough of a reason to switch.
What graphics system are you using? A lot of laptops use on board chips which don't have great 2d performance.
I guess you haven't seen compiz in action then? Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h905pHzkXPw
And that's just eye candy. The integrated software repository with thousands of free applications alone is enough of a reason to switch.
What graphics system are you using? A lot of laptops use on board chips which don't have great 2d performance.
upon install just opening programs in the menu's made it unresponsive, on a Dual core laptop with 4 gigs of ram. Then it would just not open some menu items and need a reboot. Hibernate would cause it to not boot back up and would need to use recovery mode. It also felt a lot slower than vista. Being free doesn't justify the hassle that Linux is. If its that dysfunctional on a fresh install i wouldn't dare touch it for long periods of time.
Very possibly a problem (assuming you have integrated Intel graphics) with the Linux driver for the video chipset; I've heard loads of complaints recently, many specific to ubuntu. I personally had issues with installing Linux on an Intel based laptop recently because of driver issues in this regard. It does appear that the developers took their eye off the ball with this.
You had problems on a particular machine with a particular version of a particular distro so Linux doesn't work? I can understand your frustration (ubuntu isn't a favorite of mine either), but no one's forcing you to use it.
I couldn't really like Ubuntu, dunno why, but maybe I'll give the next version of it a try.
And for the record, I use XP/Vista/Fedora.
It doesn't require any more configuration that windows, unless you want to customise it, in which case you can do as little or as much as you like.
Why oh why, you ask? Hmm, lets see... Oh yes, you need to buy it. Also, instead of listening to 15 year old advices in forums, you get professional support and quick patches.
You mean vice versa? Because RedHat releases code, and CentOS, Fedora just use it.
I am not sure how is that different when you MUST pay anyway to use RedHat, just name is different.
It's like: Windows is free but you have to pay for its phone support which is $99
In either case, you can download and use Fedora - legally - for free, and there are no artificial restrictions on it. It's not a trial or a stripped-down version of the OS. It's the full thing, only without a service plan or a company to field questions to. If you want that last bit (service and support), you need Redhat. No such option exists for Windows, although you could buy a service/support contract... thus, you're paying for Windows itself.
In either case, you can download and use Fedora - legally - for free, and there are no artificial restrictions on it. It's not a trial or a stripped-down version of the OS. It's the full thing, only without a service plan or a company to field questions to. If you want that last bit (service and support), you need Redhat. No such option exists for Windows, although you could buy a service/support contract... thus, you're paying for Windows itself.
Neither is RedHat, you need to pay for it. RedHat releases code first and other distros just take it, change logos (I remember it took ~1 month for centos to come up with 5.3 after rhel release), so yeah...
I am not sure how is that different when you MUST pay anyway to use RedHat, just name is different.
It's like: Windows is free but you have to pay for its phone support which is $99
Actually Fedora is RH's development branch, then it's released to RHL and CentOs
z0phi3l got it right, Fedora is RH's development branch so that they can bug-test their latest and greatest before giving it to paying customers, but there are also some things that are exclusive to RedHat.
Microsoft had the corporate foresight to bundle their operating system with everything in its early years, Linux just doesn't have the finances, corporate structure, or business model to do that.
That given, a 1% desktop market share is still pretty damn impressive.
And they will probable stay at 1% considering the last 10 years.
For certain server based services I think it's fantastic. Much better a Windows server. That's where it ends for me though.
Ubuntu has done really well though.
Linux is on more servers than Windows, why is that? It is a very strong and stable OS. It is a lot more logically set out than Windows, so easier to learn. It doesn't have the application support that Windows has, but in many ways it is easier to use. A lot of people will find it easier to move from XP to Ubuntu, than Xp to Vista. Of course, the lack of application will still kill it for a lot of people, but if everything you want is web based, then you will be fine. Driver wise, Linux runs on more pcs than Vista does.
Unix is on more servers than Windows not Linux. Linux uis a viable O/S to anyone with reasonable tech knowledge however, those people that haven't got that knowledge, if they go out to buy a computer and there are two machines sat next to each other with about £200GBP difference which will they choose?? Simple the Windows one, it wins out on it's name alone. There is an exception to this rule and that's netbooks, there is a comparitive £50/£70GBP difference in the prices between a Linux one and a Windows one.
Cost aside most people would still take Windows. Over the last 15 years Linux has done phenomenally well with many of us who started back in the day sat using amazing tools in Linux. Linux is the choice of the elite (3l33t - and if you thank that's 13 yr old tech speak you're on the wrong forum) because, it interoperates with Unix servers so much easier.
It will continue to gain market share as stated in the article but the battle is far from won, never mind the war over.
For certain server based services I think it's fantastic. Much better a Windows server. That's where it ends for me though.
Ubuntu has done really well though.
Definitely agree with the first part of your post.
Yes,
Ubuntu has done well. I guess all the fanboys are good for something? Definitely NOT the best Linux distro though.
I can do whatever needs to be done using either Windows or Linux, but currently am all Windows.
For certain server based services I think it's fantastic. Much better a Windows server. That's where it ends for me though.
Ubuntu has done really well though.
Certain?
Lot of servers run on Unix/Linux. I worked for 3 companies so far and most of the servers was running nix. And i worked for a rather big companies with over 1000 employees in the computer department alone.
The applications (server and desktop / consumer) are all on-par with, or better than Windows, but that vast majority of consumer software is written specifically to run on Windows, so many of us don't have the option of moving to Linux until that software goes first.
I think Ubuntu is the most widely adopted and capable candidate to take on Windows in the Desktop market, but they have to bring the gaming crowd along (without all the complication of Wine) or they will continue to be handicapped.
It has far more than that on the netbook which is all but set to effectively replace the traditional notebook.
They have far more on the netbook. That's why MS are scrambling around trying to fight it.
Clearly you haven't used it recently, for if you had you would know it matches and exceeds every feature xp/vista has. O, did I mention that it has a software repository with thousands of free applications? And comes bundled with lots of productive apps.
Sigh.. Apache + GNU/Linux dominates web servers. I think you are thinking of legacy mainframes.
GNU/Linux is happy to be known as the professional OS where you do real work, while others go to windows to play games. I know which strategy has the greatest longevity. Not only that, but many popular and recent games run natively in Linux; such as the Quake, Doom series. And if FPS games don't satisfy you, then you can run WOW, or other new titles under wine. Or if you like retro, install one of the many game console/arcade emulators such as xmame, snes9, zsnes, etc...
What sort of fantasy world do you live in? Professional OS..? -Linux-? Are you KIDDING? Your views are incredibly deluded and out-dated. 'Recent' games such as Quake and Doom? You are like some wacky fanboy that just took a Marketing 101 class, but slept through half of it. I've seen used car salesmen that are more believable than you.
This means that everything that MacOS runs on, Windows runs on, but not the other way round.
Ye they licensed a ten yr old OS for netbooks because they were unconcerned with GNU/Linux and were feeling nostalgic.
The netbook threatens MS's whole strategy as evidenced by the deployment of a ten yr old OS. The margins are slim and it's even harder to justify the price tag of windows when functional equivalents exist for free.
What presents more evidence to the contrary, is the return rate for netbooks not running Windows. Most sane people would rather run a 10-year old Windows OS, than suffer through a recent release of Linux.
Windows 7 runs noticeably better on my netbook than XP Home did.
The benchmarks don't substantiate your claims. Quite the opposite in fact.
Source? Prove it.
-- Richard Stallman, Doing a little dance.
isLinuxYear n = (n >= 1991)
isLinuxYear n = (n >=1991)
Fixed.
Awesome, as long as you are comfortable acknowledging that they have a history of lying to regulatory bodies and feel good about it, I'm happy for you.
Wrong.
Linux is a threat (and has been for the past two years) due to increasing hardware support (which had been a bugbear for Linux distributions in the past) and heavier backing by those wishing to avoid competing heads-on with Microsoft in the software space (consider OO, which while it is also available on Windows, was not planned as a Windows-primarily productivity suite ). More and more of the additional software that Linux distributions are seeing (as well as the additional funding of the distributions themselves, either directly or indirectly) is being seen as Microsoft-avoidance more than anything else. Microsoft is like the United States - they admire what they do, but they still wish they could do without them.
Sorry, Linux distributions. Microsoft is no longer sailing on the Royal Barge!
Is that why they are suing companies using GNU/Linux technologies?
Last time I checked, Windows still held the dominant position in OS market share, and still has more PCs coming with Windows preinstalled than anything else.
As a developper i'm not really found of OSA since if every bit of softwares would be OS then i would not be able to earn money.
But softwares have become so expensive and hardwares so innexpensive that i think some adjutsment need to be made. I'm sorry but over 300$ CAD for Office Standard is ridiculous. Adobe products price is ridiculous too. We have come to a point where you can build an okay gaming machine for around 800$ CAD. If you count the OS (home premium) and Office suit (standard) the user will spend near as much on software. And i doesn't count all the other softwares the user will need.
I think people who still act like open source alternatives are not a viable alternative either did not try any open source software lately or are just hypocrite. I'm in my mi-30 and i just don't have 2-3 grands to spend on softwares. I bought Vista and bought Windows 7 upgrade pre-order. But i run Open Office 3 which for the average user do the job perfectly. My CV made with Office XP opens perfectly under it. I run Gimp. Might not be enough good for some pros (but i've seen people on Deviant Art do incredible things with it) but for me that's far enough. I run Infrared Recorder. Inkspace. Eclipse with web and php tools. Etc ... It does the job.
And if it was not for the 2-3 games i play (OBlivion, Half Life 2 and BF 2) i would certainly run Linux.
Price of software imo needs to be adjusted a little bit.
It always amazes me the number of people who think that english is the only language spoken on earth. They can't ******* say hello in any other language but yet they ask all people to write perfectly in english.
I do my best. Please next time show some maturity and don't assume things based on the way someone write in a foreign language.
I do my best. Please next time show some maturity and don't assume things based on the way someone write in a foreign language.
Hear, hear. Most people who speak English as their native language tend to expect everyone else to be able to speak in their language as well, they can be so closed-minded! I take it since you mention $CAD that you're French-Canadian? I agree with your points, and the remark about games, there are some methods of playing Windows games on Linux, however things like Cedega/etc. are still far off from native code, especially considering OpenGL 3.0 is a good enough rival to DirectX 10/11... There just needs to be more demand for Linux games...
I'm pretty sure most of those run under wine.
Have you considered that his native language might not be English? I too could pick apart your sentences with grammatical and semantic reproval, but that would be petty and pedantic would it not?
Sure they do. Badly.
I do my best. Please next time show some maturity and don't assume things based on the way someone write in a foreign language.
As sympathetic as you may be, the last time I checked, Neowin is an English-speaking site, with many users being known for being fully literate and grammatically correct with English.
It's not so much hate or immaturity as it is a simple distaste for seeing our native language being butchered and or misused. Similarly, if we went to an Italian forum board and attempted to post in Italian and messed up, they would comment on it too.
Stop making people out to be hate-mongers and start thinking about the other side of things before you jump to conclusions.
I would love to use Linux, unfortunately they are all flawed, because that continually change. Microsoft are bad enough, but Linux distro's are constantly changing the desktops, and their utilities. Gnome and KDE battle with each other. I am sick of learning one, just to find the then version is different. You end up using shell commands, because that's the bit that changes least.
If a Linux distro stuck with one desktop / configuration utilities, they could wipe the floor with the rest. Perhaps Google can scare them all into sanity.
If a Linux distro stuck with one desktop / configuration utilities, they could wipe the floor with the rest. Perhaps Google can scare them all into sanity.
Well said.
This has been my problem with Linux since the beginning. G this and K that and each works somewhat differently. Between the competing 'free' software offerings on the platform and the zealots who offer no community support other than read the man pages, I gave up on linux a long time ago.
Some people say that Linux is on more servers than Windows. The reason for this is APACHE. without APACHE there would not be such a huge Linux Server market.
The other reason for Linux's popularity the server market is not Windows, but UNIX's fault. UNIX servers were once run on BIG EXPENSIVE HARDWARE and OS SUPPORT CONTRACTS from the various UNIX vendors. Linux was a viable solution to the High Performance Computing services, where windows did not have a foothold. Look at that sector of the market now. Windows HPC clusters are gaining a foothold there. It's almost the reverse of the Consumer market, and Microsoft is gaining there.
When it comes to the consumer market however, the obvious choices are Apple's Unix incarnation, OSX; or Windows. Why, you may ask. the choice is simple. They started the market. Their customers have grown up and grown into the different companies ways of thinking. Their user community doesn't have to be uber~geeky, nor do they have to learn the inner workings of the sytems they are using.
I challenge anyone to show me a linux distro where you NEVER have to bail out of the UI into the command line to accomplish a task that is a couple quick clicks in the Consumer OS world.
I have friends that sell Solaris desktops, Linux desktops as their primary PC sales business. They wind up spending a great deal of time handholding their customers for a 'free' OS.
If I were a business owner, I would stick with windows simply because Linux is too expensive. You may think I'm crazy here, but I do have some rationale. Those of you who are Linux professionals know that you garner wages that are 60% higher than what your Windows counterparts make. You're too expensive to have on my payroll. I can amortize the hardware/software expenses more easily than I can justify you payrolls.
Open Source is Free, if your time is worthless.
Linux is all about reinventing the wheel, and every developer thinks his own version of the wheel is the best.
Linux is all about reinventing the wheel, and every developer thinks his own version of the wheel is the best.
It's called freedom.
Unix used to be a more powerful & more fully developed alternative to DOS... PC folks were just starting to get acquainted with it when Win 3.1 came along. Since then Windows folks have been, well, Windows folks, & CLI folks have tended to stick with 'nix in 1 form or another. Graphical GUIs make it easier from the get go because there's far less to remember -- your choices are all right there. CLI is more efficient because graphical GUIs sit on top of everything else & consume resources just to look pretty. Over the years 'nix got similar, pretty GUIs sitting on top of the OS too, so they could compete, but it was never a takeover -- the OS was never redesigned to focus only on the GUI.
Soooo...
"Linux distro's are constantly changing the desktops, and their utilities."
Pick 1 & stick with it -- distro & GUI.
"You end up using shell commands..."
Just like with Windows. :-)
"If a Linux distro stuck with one desktop / configuration utilities, they could wipe the floor with the rest."
Something Freespire / Linspire are focusing on, & to a slightly lesser extent, many of the others like Suse.
"Some people say that Linux is on more servers than Windows."
Now for servers, in applications where you just want the thing to run -- little or no user intervention necessary -- the GUI is even more of a waste of resources, because no one's using it 90+ % of the time. Nothing's gonna change that. In applications when you want / need to interact more often, a GUI makes it easier -- again, less to remember when all your choices are right there. As systems get more powerful, efficiency matters less & less, so choices often boil down to available software, cost, & what the boss prefers for whatever reasons, including stuff like who bought the fancy lunch.
"without APACHE there would not be such a huge Linux Server market. "
No offense even hinted, but Apache has been available for Windows for quite a few years -- it actually helped Windows break into that market.
"Their user community doesn't have to be uber~geeky, nor do they have to learn the inner workings of the sytems they are using. "
This is both true & not, with respect to the 'nix & Windows communities... depends on what you want to do. IMHO what you're saying is that you couldn't find the info you needed in an easy to understand format. That comes with/from a wide user base that already has done whatever it is you want. Today there's an awful lot more Linux info available in plain speak, & with many topics, there's very little Windows info available, in geek speak or otherwise. The problem isn't really along the lines of needing to be a geek to run Linux, but needing more non-geeks to use it & post their experiences, & that's happening, albeit slowly.
Linux is all about reinventing the wheel, and every developer thinks his own version of the wheel is the best.
It's called freedom.
For you. For me, I call it a waste of time, effort and resources. But hey, everyone needs a half-dozen mediocre media players on their system. Go go freedom!
+MORE than One kcan kshake a gstick at. gGood onya
MPlayer, VLC, Amarok? Troll much?
All of which are available on Windows as well. As for trolling, I'm not the one littering up this thread with the same crap that Lintards have been trying to spew for the past 15 years. Still waiting for that 'year of the linux desktop'...and likely will be, for a long time to come. But feel free to look like a fool, brings humor to threads such as this.
Excuse me? Have you even visited the forums here at Neowin? Or is that giant glass box known as FANBOY too thick for you to see such things?
The Neowin forums are just the tip of the iceberg. Windows forums have been around for years, decades even.
In short, I can see why / how Linux would compete with Windows, & personally figure the main thing holding it back in the general use, home market is lack of promotion -- figure most people in that market have no idea Linux is even an alternative.
Its = possessive.
'There is two people.' - ungrammatical
'There are two people.' - grammatical
It's likely the second will disappear in all but classical literature.
It'll be interesting to see the Netbook OS battles... Especially with the new Google OS when that does come out. lol
Just like this is the year of the Linux desktop, right? Or was that last year...or a decade ago...or next year? Right right...sure....
Advantages of Linux. It's free. There is lots of great software, like Firefox, OpenOffice.org, GIMP, Brasero, Audacity, and Evolution; these are also free. All "official" software comes from a single repository that notifies you when updates are available, and updates are done with ease. It is secure; iptables is an industrial strength firewall and antivirus software isn't needed (I use ClamAV to prevent spreading viruses to Windows systems via e-mails). It is stable; system slowdowns and crashes just don't happen (at least for me); Windows mingles the GUI with the OS, whereas Linux keeps the kernel separate from the GUI, so crashes in the GUI don't stop the kernel. The only time you need to reboot after an update is if the kernel is updated. Linux is pretty cutting edge; ext3 is fast and the new ext4 is even faster (still waiting for final bugs to be worked out); it has excellent dual-processor support; it is leading the way in USB 3.0 support; Ubuntu is working towards a goal to cut boot times to 10 seconds. Linux is not a resource hog; it runs well on pretty minimal systems and the x-desktop is designed for low-resource boxes. Look and feel are of good quality; I would compare Ubuntu favorably with Windows XP and Kubuntu with Vista. If you are a little tech-savvy, you can easily access and work with system resources via the Terminal. With Windows, if something goes wrong you are pretty much screwed; get ready to do a re-install (Recall the adage - the good thing about Windows is that it does everything automatically; the bad thing is it does everything automatically.).
And did I mention it's free?
Windows 7 fulfills that requirement for me now, so why should i care if anything else can do the same when I'm familiar with and like it as it is?
No, I don't "fear" change. I just don't see a reason to accept it when there really isn't any.
well my disk will probably just cost me shipping woo for the free upgrade.
and yeah it installs pretty fast on my computer, though i think 10-12 mins is an exageration 20-30 is more realistic, but lets face it who cares its a task you do once and your set.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.