Oliver wrote:
stefcep2 wrote:
...MS wants to wash its hands clean of that name so as not to deter people wanting to shift from XP
If that is really the case, they may have a hard time selling Win 7 to people bought Vista. Perhaps they will do a discounted upgrade.
MS has gone on the record as saying the Win 7 OS upgrade is NOT "revolution" as Vista was, and that its built on the Vista kernel. MS has said that to do more would break existing software and hardware. They have called WIN 7 "more evolution, than revolution".
Win 7 has come about because the "old trick" has failed: upgrading your hardware to run new OS as fast as your old one has worn thin with Joe Average PC user, who is more computer savvy and probably already on at least his second version of Windows.
Users haven't given a rats about aero, or the other eye candy, when it takes them longer to do what they used to do in XP on hardware that ought to be faster but isn't.
The best way to protest against corporations is not to give them money by not buying their product. In effect thats what has happened to MS with Vista. MS simply can't afford another failed OS, they HAVE to make Win 7 run faster than Vista, people have to see the benefits, otherwise they are screwed, especially as Apple's new OS is said to need less resources and is faster than the previous OS's running on the same hardware,
IMHO what is hobbling current hardware is a lack of multithreading at the OS and app level, that would allow different CPU cores to perform different tasks simultaneously. Its ridiculous that my start menu won't pop up instantly and then leaves behind screen garbage when I close it just because a web page is loading at the same time, this on 2.4ghz Core2Duo with 4 gig ram laptop
