[yuki333]

I'm glad we could reach an agreement. The only reason windows won't release things for free is because it's not their business model. They were founded 34 years ago and it's a bit too late to change how they work now. Just like as much as I dislike apple, if I needed to edit a high-budget film, I'd get Final cut pro. It's all about using the right tool to acomplish a task the quickest. But Microsoft is at least attempting to make their OSs better, I've tested windows 7 exclusively for a month, and even though it's an RC, it's very solid. And with the increase in the development of new technology, I'm sure they're started making changes too. You just have to remember, they're a business, not a community project. It's sorta like comparing apple to microsoft, one is sofware only, the other is software and hardware.

[ShannonVanWagner]

"I see you have never heard of modular programming. It is highly used in enterprise systems where the modules are customized for the location served by the application. The company I retired from had several inhouse custom written systems for the paper mill locations in different areas of the country. Modules were used so that the same application could be installed in each location, but the trade terms, unit measurements, and formatting could be differentiated by codes input to the codes file. The system read this when it loaded."

I'm not attempting to argue the technical details of the Windows installation. It's not like I would be allowed to look at the source code anyway(that was a joke... haha). And I am an IT professional, so yes, I am familiar with modular(as in object oriented) versus procedural interaction of computer programs.

The simple point I was trying to make is that windows is limiting you from it's fullest potential based on how much money you put in to the change machine. This alone is not an argument.. but when you compare it to the idea that you can get a powerful and definately comparable operating system for FREE (as in GNU/Linux)(and yes, one that is modularly upgradeable and comes with FREE security updates), it becomes a very relevant point.

"I am not longer interesting in trying Ubuntu or any other Linux distro. I reverted my laptop back to it's original XP Home installation (simply reinstalled the original drive) when it became apparent that although Ubuntu 8.04 would recognize my network, it would not recognize my files on the NAS with CIFS file handling. Even though I am retired, I have better use for my time than fighting Linux. I was able to install Win7 on my laptop and connect to the network and access my files in less than 40 minutes. I fought Ubuntu for 4 hours over several days not including the search time to attempt to find solutions."

I see that you mention Ubuntu 8.04(meaning April(4), 2008 as the release date), and here's the thing: Ubuntu is updated every 6 months. So the current version is now Ubuntu 9.04 (April 2009 release), and I think if you were to give it another try, you might be surprised how much better it is already. Oh and the 10 second boot target is set for version 10.04. The Linux kernel, which handles hardware drivers, is updated about every 3 months. So if you had a bad experience a year ago, Linux is fast-moving enough that you are cheating yourself to not try it again. Finally, consider running the "System Testing"utility, even if it's from the Ubuntu LiveCD, and submit your hardware to the database. This will help them to support your specific hardware even quicker.

Ubuntu Linux can install inside windows as a program with wubi, or you can boot to the livecd and check it out without making changes to your comptuer, and Linux has Virtualbox (easy to install in Ubuntu), where you can run a Windows virtual machine inside if you need to.

Now this will be my last post... since I've said a lot about the benefits of Linux, and this is not a Linux article that I'm replying to. So I can only hope that people will do the right thing... humans enabled, that's what technology is for.. come and add to the effort!

[Kinman]

Windows 7: Is Six Versions Too Much?
I think the answer is pretty clear. As if MS thinks vista didn't screw themselves up enough, they have to make six versions of win7 to confuse users.
At most two versions, like XP's home and pro (MCE is not a major one), is pretty enough.

[quackadilly]

You might be an IT professional, but I'm not sure you understand the non-IT side of a business.

YOU MAKE MONEY BY SELLING, NOT GIVING.

Why would Microsoft limit the selection? The more product models you have on the market, the greater the chance you have of selling 1 of those products to each potential buyer.

Microsoft is not limiting anyone, you have the choice to go buy the Windows 7 Ultimate version if you like. How are they limiting anyone? If Linux was truly comparable AND free, don't you think everyone would be using it? Why are you bringing up the "FREE security updates"? Microsoft offers that too.....

If Ubuntu can change that much in 1 year, doesn't that mean that they have something wrong RIGHT NOW? Why submit your hardware to the database to get support when you can have it NOW with Microsoft? If Ubuntu and Linux are moving that fast with improvements, why bother trying to keep up? Why not wait till they slow down and get it right?

Your ranting has no solid basis for argument. You seriously can't argue your preceptions against what other people are thinking. Everyone has different needs. Most people aren't worried about spending $200 on an OS that will last them 6+ years. My copy of XP Pro has lasted me since October of 2001 and does everything I need it to do. I've never had a problem finding a driver or getting software to work properly.-----
@rgreen4:

I made a fresh install of Vista Business and it works great. I'm temporarily retracting the comments I made about the sluggishness of Vista (Even without SP2). Windows 7 is amazing!!! In just 2 days, the RC has already convinced me to buy it when released. I finally have my XP Pro replacement.-----

Anyways, what's your deal? Do you just dislike MS? All of you Linux fans are always touting FREE FREE FREE and "comparable to the latest Windows"...... But you guys never ever mention the issues you come across with this FREE OS. And I don't want to hear that it's perfect and you never have issues......I know you do. Don't be a liar. I'm always open about issues I have with MS products, the only way to make it better is to voice your concern, not hide it and act like you're smarter than everyone else for going with the FREE, "undiscovered by the public" stuff.



"So I can only hope that people will do the right thing"

Which is what.....go by your word? Or do whatever they think they need?



"Humans enabled" ........ They've already spoken....and the majority have chosen Microsoft.

[rgreen4]

Three of the six are for specialized installations, one is supposed to be only available through the Anytime Upgrade program, which leaves - 2 for consumer use. Home Premium and Professional.

[smax013]

ShannonVanWagner said:

The simple point I was trying to make is that windows is limiting you from it's fullest potential based on how much money you put in to the change machine. This alone is not an argument.. but when you compare it to the idea that you can get a powerful and definately comparable operating system for FREE (as in GNU/Linux)(and yes, one that is modularly upgradeable and comes with FREE security updates), it becomes a very relevant point.

The one thing that you neglect is that "free" can be a rather loaded and relative term.

Is Linux "free" if a program that I need does not run on it? While OpenOffice will work for a LOT of people, there are things that it CANNOT do that Microsoft Office can do. And that is still a very general type program. You get into more specialized programs and now it becomes more and more likely that Linux can not provide a solution that will work at all as opposed to partially. And how much do I "spend" looking for a program that will do what I want or need on Linux? My time is money too.

Then there is the issue of re-training. Like it or not, most computer users had trouble learning to do even simple tasks in Windows. If you now change them to Linux, they might have to re-learn some of those simple things. And while you or I, who are likely not "typical" computer users, would not be fazed by small, minor, insignificant interface changes that really do not change how you do something, it can be a MAJOR roadblock to some. And thus, the time spend to retrain people or for people to re-learn stuff costs time and thus money.

Similar for support costs. While Linux has undoubtly greatly improved and is a lot easier to work with and support than it was 1 year ago, it is still different than Windows. Thus, if your support infrastructure is for Windows systems, then you will have re-train/re-orient that support structure to deal with Linux. And again, that takes time and money.

The point is that if you were in a "vacuum" and dealing with someone that had never used a computer before and no previous experience or knowledge of Windows, then you likely could claim the whole "free" bit. But, back here in the real world, most of the users you are dealing with have used a computer before and it most likely has/had Windows on it. Thus, there WILL be costs associated with getting that user to use Linux on a computer.

[jeffwindowsteam]

I think the bottom line here is that there are several different OS's from several different sources, and the "best" OS is one that best suits the users needs and means. For some users it is Linux, for some OS X, and for a majority of people, Windows. To each their own.