Windows 7 Will Kill XP Ahead of Windows 8, It

[pezzonovante]

The answer to your question is right there. People don't need to pay for Linux, feature upgrades are free of charge.

We cannot say that Windows 7 brings anything new to the table in terms a features, Linux desktops on the other hand evolute constantly in terms of usability features, always worth the upgrade to the latest and greatest (with no costs).

Linux desktops never improves usability or UI. It was fugly and unproductive 10 years ago, it still is and will be the same 10 years from now. On the other hand Windows 7 has improved so much that it has become the fastest selling OS in history and the greatest OS in the history of the universe.

[Ci7]

The answer to your question is right there. People don't need to pay for Linux, feature upgrades are free of charge.

We cannot say that Windows 7 brings anything new to the table in terms of features, Linux desktops on the other hand evolute constantly in terms of usability features, always worth the upgrade to the latest and greatest (with no costs).

hypocrite

[GayWolf]

Linux desktops never improves usability or UI. It was fugly and unproductive 10 years ago, it still is and will be the same 10 years from now. On the other hand Windows 7 has improved so much that it has become the fastest selling OS in history and the greatest OS in the history of the universe.

Whatever mate, if come here to troll, troll as you please. But did you knew that the Windows desktop took inspiration for some of its features from a Linux desktop environment called KDE? Do a little research first. ;)

For laughs:

[pezzonovante]

Whatever mate, if come here to troll, troll as you please. But did you knew that the Compiz took inspiration for some of its features from Windows Longhorn? Do a little research first. ;)

My advice to you.

[GayWolf]

hypocrite

Care to elaborate?

[hdood]

XP only belongs on old hardware or virtual machines. One thing I can't stand is people who install XP on a core i7 with 6GB+ of RAM and try to justify its use over Windows 7. Even core 2 systems benefit better from having 7 instead of XP.

How many people do this? Virtually no one. These mythical people don't exist. It's not an issue at all.

Windows XP is 9 years old. NINE YEARS OLD. Do you realize how long that is in tech years? Think about it.

Not that long, honestly. Things haven't changed quite as much this decade as they did the one before. I don't really feel that my 3.1 GHz C2D offers much over my 833 MHz P3. The biggest difference is that Windows looks different, it's slightly prettier now. I don't play many games, so I don't care about that part. Oh, and aero snap and the fact that you can rearrange taskbar tabs. That's the only notable difference for me when using them. That and the fact that Explorer no longer locks up when waiting for drives to become ready. I mean, I actually would upgrade just for these, but they aren't very notable. I don't feel that there are any groundbreaking improvements. It's nothing like from 1990 to 1999. I think most people feel the same. It's just not as exciting anymore. Computers have reached the point where they all pretty much do everything you want, so who cares anymore.

Clearly, Microsoft made a huge mistake waiting so long to release a new OS (Vista).

Ironically because they tried to change too much. The result was that they wasted years and had to throw it all away, and we're now stuck with what is a much more modest upgrade of XP compared to what they were really planning.

[J_R_G]

What are you comparing there? An OS running on a Pentium 3 (Windows XP) with another running on a Dual Core with loads of RAM (Windows 7).

Now try to run that same marvelous OS on a Pentium 3. Yeah...

Hum cool story bro.

What's hilarious is people that try to put OSX or Linux in the same bag as Windows. Windows accounts for something like 98% of the entire collection of virus/spyware/malware, yet there are poeple like you who overlook that "small" detail.

What's even more hilarious is people who think hackers are going to code for 1% of the market instead of going after 91% of the market, even if it's harder. Hackers are in business to make money, not to make people feel good by supporting dead platforms.

[Tha Bloo Monkee]

I don't think I'm going to debate in this thread any longer. Too many people are one-sided and think that everyone should fork out money to upgrade their old machines to the latest OS, when there is no point.

[Ci7]

Care to elaborate?

We cannot say that Windows 7 brings anything new to the table in terms of features

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7

what do you exactly call all that list?

yea microsoft just installed a skin over xp and call it a day

[+Warwagon MVC]

I don't think I'm going to debate in this thread any longer. Too many people are one-sided and think that everyone should fork out money to upgrade their old machines to the latest OS, when there is no point.

Amen Brother!

I'm not going to tell any of my customers that are running a $150 P4 machine to spend $100 to upgrade to windows 7. That would be retarded.

[farmeunit]

Well I'd love to know what security feature in Linux makes it more secure than Windows 7. Does Linux have an anti-kernel modification routine and require signed drivers to keep out rootkits? Does it sandbox the browser? By default? Because Windows 7 x64 does. People just keep saying Linux is more secure, they can never tell me what security feature Linux has, by default, that would cause that.

Win 7 only sandboxes the browser if using IE. Linux generally requires ROOT to run anything that could cause any real damage, which requires you running a command, then using the root password. In Ubuntu you get popup when accessing those area in the GUI and requires a password. They've been doing that or a LONG time, and Vista/Win7 finally started doing similar.

There is also AppArmor which can be installed and also, SELinux.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AppArmor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SELinux

[rajputwarrior]

First of all that 80% includes corporate users as well as pirated Chinese users.

Now, common sense should tell you that China has more computer users than any other country in the world. Secondly, I found the stat that 90% Chinese people use XP a few months ago in a chinese web site which currently I can't recall. Thirdly the 99% piracy figure is an estimate which I don't think is far off from reality.

still no backup, solid (Y)

[Frylock86]

We cannot say that Windows 7 brings anything new to the table in terms of features

You're right.

There isn't a new codebase in there that adds stability

There isn't new (and needed) security features in there that protect the core of the OS

There isn't an updated API

There isn't a new taskbar that improves productivity

There isn't a new search feature that eliminates the need to dig through the Start Menu

There isn't improved backup features

There isn't an improved networking stack

There isn't Homegroup - that makes home networking easy

There isn't improved hardware support

Nah, you're right. There isn't anything new in Windows 7. It's just XP with glass tacked onto it. :pinch:

[J_R_G]

Win 7 only sandboxes the browser if using IE. Linux generally requires ROOT to run anything that could cause any real damage, which requires you running a command, then using the root password. In Ubuntu you get popup when accessing those area in the GUI and requires a password. They've been doing that or a LONG time, and Vista/Win7 finally started doing similar.

There is also AppArmor which can be installed and also, SELinux.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AppArmor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SELinux

Any browser can be sandboxed by using tools like chml.exe on Windows. And yea, you need to give your consent to run things as admin in Windows too. Windows going back to NT 3.1 could run like that, it just wasn't the default. The same way apparmor and selinux are not the default on ubuntu. Apparmor and selinux are ok, but in its default config, ubuntu doesn't sandbox the browser or try to stop rootkits like (modern) Windows does, so I just don't see linux as being more secure. Having to use non-default command line tools that are impossible for the average user to understand to make it secure does not really count, because almost no one does that.

[rajputwarrior]

Any browser can be sandboxed by using tools like chml.exe on Windows. And yea, you need to give your consent to run things as admin in Windows too. Windows going back to NT 3.1 could run like that, it just wasn't the default. The same way apparmor and selinux are not the default on ubuntu. Apparmor and selinux are ok, but in its default config, ubuntu doesn't sandbox the browser or try to stop rootkits like (modern) Windows does, so I just don't see linux as being more secure. Having to use non-default command line tools that are impossible for the average user to understand to make it secure does not really count, because almost no one does that.

especially SELinux...

[GayWolf]

You're right.

There isn't a new codebase in there that adds stability

There isn't new (and needed) security features in there that protect the core of the OS

There isn't an updated API

There isn't a new taskbar that improves productivity

There isn't a new search feature that eliminates the need to dig through the Start Menu

There isn't improved backup features

There isn't an improved networking stack

There isn't Homegroup - that makes home networking easy

There isn't improved hardware support

Nah, you're right. There isn't anything new in Windows 7. It's just XP with glass tacked onto it. :pinch:

We're talking about usability, features that matter to the real user. All of what you've mentioned can be achieved using Windows XP. Just install some free "third-party" tools and you have a pretty decent, secure and stable OS. Windows 7 adds nothing new that cannot be done using Windows XP. There's no must-have feature in it that would make someone feel the urge to upgrade, just cosmetics, and for some people that clearly isn't enough.

Because of that mentioned above, Windows XP is here to stay and dominate.

[rajputwarrior]

We're talking about usability, features that matter to the real user. All of what you've mentioned can be achieved using Windows XP. Just install some free "third-party" tools and you have a pretty decent, secure and stable OS. Windows 7 adds nothing new that cannot be done using Windows XP. There's no must-have feature in it that would make someone feel the urge to upgrade, just cosmetics, and for some people that clearly isn't enough.

Because of that mentioned above, Windows XP is here to stay and dominate.

i wouldn't say dominate... it's losing OS share pretty fast.

[J_R_G]

We're talking about usability, features that matter to the real user. All of what you've mentioned can be achieved using Windows XP. Just install some free "third-party" tools and you have a pretty decent, secure and stable OS. Windows 7 adds nothing new that cannot be done using Windows XP. There's no must-have feature in it that would make someone feel the urge to upgrade, just cosmetics, and for some people that clearly isn't enough.

Because of that mentioned above, Windows XP is here to stay and dominate.

And how do you add ASLR and ACLed services, and Mandatory Access Controls to XP? Cuz I'd love to know. Also how do you get mandatory x64 support and DX11 on XP? Not important to you, but important to a lot of people.

[GayWolf]

i wouldn't say dominate... it's losing OS share pretty fast.

It'll probably take Windows 7 three years to dethrone Windows XP. By then Windows 8 will probably be out.

[Udedenkz]

There are some fundamental disadvantages to Windows 7.

1. Software has less memory to work with. Windows 7 uses about 5 times more memory than XP. This is a non issue if you do nothing RAM intensive / have plenty of free available RAM always...

2. Windows Media Player. WMP comes with Windows 7 by default and is nice. The thing scrolling lists of songs takes an immense amount of CPU.

3. Windows Explorer has the same issue. Compared to XP, W7 Windows Explorer requires significantly more CPU power than XP's Windows Explorer. No I am not talking just about the large icon mode... I am talking about the detailed view.

4. Win XP performs much better in DX9 gaming. If you need to squeeze the living hell out of your system in terms of DX9 gaming, XP. **** 7

5. Same goes for the the user interface. XPs user interface -although lacking snap to screen age funct- is faster once the drivers are installed. This is not the case before the drivers are installed.

6. Unlike XP, Windows 7 does not run the CPU at 100% all the time. This makes it seem slower than XP (In B4 captain obvious). This can easily be fixed by an advanced user.

7. User Account Control. Worst power-user feature conceived. It slows down things considerably (Ex. Gothic II install) and it annoys you to no end. Luckily the whole thing can truly be disabled by killing off the driver.

Num. 1 cannot be fixed. This is just simple progression. Nothing too special here.

Num. 6 & 7 can be tackled with ease by any power user.

Num. 2, 3, 4, & 5 SHOULD be fixed by Microsoft. The most problematic is Num. 3 considering that netbooks these days come with W7 pre-installed.

Oh and the whole Linux interface argument is lulzworthy. W7 has the best interface out there.

[GayWolf]

And how do you add ASLR and ACLed services, and Mandatory Access Controls to XP? Cuz I'd love to know. Also how do you get mandatory x64 support and DX11 on XP? Not important to you, but important to a lot of people.

You can stop using an insecure browser for example, replace IE with Chrome for instance?

As for DX11, if you're a gamer yeah it would be important to you. But then again, those people are not the common user, gamers can afford to spend a fortune on a new rig, or just buy a PS3 to do their gaming...

[Ci7]

It'll probably take Windows 7 three years to dethrone Windows XP. By then Windows 8 will probably be out.

i give it a max 18 month from now!

[J_R_G]

You can stop using an insecure browser for example, replace IE with Chrome for instance?

As for DX11, if you're a gamer yeah it would be important to you. But then again, those people are not the common user, gamers can afford to spend a fortune on a new rig, or just buy a PS3 to do their gaming...

Chrome is not bullet proof, especially on XP without ASLR, etc. you are still more susceptible to malware. IE is not insecure, except on XP where all browsers are insecure. Point is you said you could do anything on XP that Win 7 does, and in fact there are some pretty significant things that you can not, they just are not important to the Luddite demographic which should not count in a tech. debate anyways. I mean, winning every argument by saying "I use Windows 3.1 and it does everything I need, blah blah blah" is just retarded.

[Frylock86]

We're talking about usability, features that matter to the real user. All of what you've mentioned can be achieved using Windows XP. Just install some free "third-party" tools and you have a pretty decent, secure and stable OS. Windows 7 adds nothing new that cannot be done using Windows XP. There's no must-have feature in it that would make someone feel the urge to upgrade, just cosmetics, and for some people that clearly isn't enough.

Because of that mentioned above, Windows XP is here to stay and dominate.

Those do apply to the home user... And no, you can't get all that with third party addons.

And no, XP isn't here to stay. It's loosing market share like crazy.

[lalalawawawa]

There are some fundamental disadvantages to Windows 7.

1. Software has less memory to work with. Windows 7 uses about 5 times more memory than XP. This is a non issue if you do nothing RAM intensive / have plenty of free available RAM always...

2. Windows Media Player. WMP comes with Windows 7 by default and is nice. The thing scrolling lists of songs takes an immense amount of CPU.

3. Windows Explorer has the same issue. Compared to XP, W7 Windows Explorer requires significantly more CPU power than XP's Windows Explorer. No I am not talking just about the large icon mode... I am talking about the detailed view.

4. Win XP performs much better in DX9 gaming. If you need to squeeze the living hell out of your system in terms of DX9 gaming, XP. **** 7

5. Same goes for the the user interface. XPs user interface -although lacking snap to screen age funct- is faster once the drivers are installed. This is not the case before the drivers are installed.

6. Unlike XP, Windows 7 does not run the CPU at 100% all the time. This makes it seem slower than XP (In B4 captain obvious). This can easily be fixed by an advanced user.

7. User Account Control. Worst power-user feature conceived. It slows down things considerably (Ex. Gothic II install) and it annoys you to no end. Luckily the whole thing can truly be disabled by killing off the driver.

Num. 1 cannot be fixed. This is just simple progression. Nothing too special here.

Num. 6 & 7 can be tackled with ease by any power user.

Num. 2, 3, 4, & 5 SHOULD be fixed by Microsoft. The most problematic is Num. 3 considering that netbooks these days come with W7 pre-installed.

Oh and the whole Linux interface argument is lulzworthy. W7 has the best interface out there.

Before I start, I'm posting this on a ASUS-g71g lappy which came out a few months before 7. Meaning, its not some ****ed up technology from 2002.

1. Unused memory is wasted memory. When are people going to understand that... :/

2. It works fine here, and I have ~27gb of music. Read the first line. ;)

3. Again, don't have any problems here. Read the first line.

4. No, it does not. 7 performs better, period.

5. If you have a ****ty GPU, like an integrated one from 1874, yea, I would agree. Otherwise, no. Read a few pages about how Windows 7 does the interface part.

6. Considering that 7 uses multithreading, multirendering, multiwhatever more efficiently than XP, I'd say I disagree.

7. Go bitch to Gothic's developers, not to Microsoft. Mkay?

Oh, and stop with the whole Windows vs Linux debate.