"Windows 7: Obviously I've struck a nerve"

Mission accomplished, eh Levy?

"I've got a thick skin"

Really? They why the need to type three paragraphs explaining how thick your skin is?

Valid points or not, Windows 7 is NOT ABOUT YOU...

If you need to reinforce how 'thick your skin is', maybe you should be working with a therapist, not a psuedo apology trying to create an false sense of how noble your efforts are to 'get people to think'.

If you wanted to get people to 'think' you would have written an article based on information, ideas, and facts. Instead you gave opinion and hyperbole based on your narrow methods of computer usage that only demonstrated how little you understand about OS architecture and user interaction with an OS.

There are lots of good reasons for people NOT to upgrade to Windows7, sadly you didn't focus on real ones.

Instead you are simply misleading readers because of your own inexperience and don't even conceive additional functionality and productivity that even a 10 year old computer with Windows7 would offer a lot of people.

I wish BetaNews would return to writers and journalists that have a broader understanding of computer technology instead of the, “Me Too!,” or “I’m a Rebel,” fluff pieces that offer little real world information.

Seriously, do you understand anything beyond what you do on a computer? Do you understand why memory manager changes and reduction in both kernel and shell locks have a large impact on a user’s productivity and would save them hours a week on a very generic scale?

Sadly, I would bet not very much, or at least not enough that you took time to mention these benefits, as they are not listed ‘features’, which is apparently all people go by anymore.

Apple can post 300 new features that detail dialog box text changes and reviews rave about the 300 features, and Microsoft shoves out thousands of equivalent features but doesn’t detail them at the same anal retentive level, so people like you don’t realize they are there, let alone look at all the core and technology advances that are not ‘classic Apple-like features’ but are memory manager changes and locking reductions that are EVEN MORE IMPORTANT than changing a dialog box and affect and help the users far more.

Yet the 300 Apple features are ‘wonderful’ and oddly it is still hard to find articles on the OS X kernel funnel locks that restrict the OS and processes to one processor, which is why an 8 core Xeon Mac Pro will often be running everything on one processor. (And ironic since, on their own, BSD and MACH kernel designs do well with SMP, but the Apple XNU BSD/MACH hybrid is horrid at multi-core/multi-cpu/SMP scaling and scheduling.)

How about an article on the OS X kernel next, and REALLY make us think with some ‘facts’ and show us how awesome and think your skin really is?

Microsoft, Apple, and Linux all have their respective place in life. All three have a well defined purpose. As for the various versions of the OS, there is a place for them aswell. I understand that there are going to be those that see the entire world as Microsoft....and likewise for Apple and Linux. I disagree with the notion that one is better than any of the others. So much of it is so very dependant on what the user does and what the user wants. One very important thing that I think gets lost in all the discussion is a fundamental difference between the three types of users. There are the individual home users that usually only have one to five computers. There are those that sit down to a computer at work every day that's on a network controlled by someone else (wether in house or by remote access). Then there are those that manage millions of dollars worth of servers for corporations like Google or Microsoft. Each of these three areas require different kinds of thinking to operate.

It might be wiser for the professional IT technician to run the latest OS to gain a full understanding of how everything works. Manufacturer support is often a must for these people. This is also important for those that manage million dollar mainframes and server farms.

The average office worker isn't really going to care what the OS is as long as the can get their work done. This is one place where 98se could still be used with security handled through other servers on the network. Very little power is needed for a few spreadsheets and inputting data into the average website.

Home users have the greatest latitude here. The home user has their pick of whatever they like. Someone that only gets a few emails and wants to get the latest news from a handfull of sites might not need anything more than 98se or XP. Many people get into high end gaming at home and for those...I would suggest XP or Vista (depending on game requirements). Dealing with music and movies might require anything above Win2k. Alot of people run SATA drives and that can't be done using 98se or a twenty year old version of linux.

It's about the needs and desires of the end user. Broad statements just can't be made like that and excepted by most people. I would bet though that each new version of Windows will likely come with more controls that limit users and help MS. I would also bet that each new OS will come with new problems and vulnerabilities. Many of these problems are not going to get fixed and have been around for a long time. Active X is a serious issue and will never really get dealt with. The integration of IE into Windows will never ACTUALLY be dealt with.

The biggest problems in technology have more to do with user ignorance, the lies of the advertising industry, and fear. I'm not talking about fear of change. I'm talking about the fear of being manipulated (or remotely controlled). Change can be a very good thing. But, change for the sake of change is nothing short of idiocy.

I would be more inclined to believe that hardware is the biggest and most important aspect of the entire computing world. It's less about the specific OS and more about the hardware.

As for me, I run a mix of Windows and Linux. I have nothing against MAC users short of their arrogance.

I agree on most points. Except that:

- All security issues of Windows will be addressed to the satisfaction of 95%+ of users (maybe not you). It already jumped from 10% to 70% from Win98 to Win2K, and from 70% to 85% with XP (still lotsa spyware/toolbars) then to 90% with Vista (infamous UAC). That means if ActiveX runs in some limited mode that can only read/write files to certain locations etc, then that, for me, means the problem is solved.

- Integrating IE into Windows isn't a problem for 95%+ of the people, including those that use Firefox... The few MB of space it takes up are a drop in today's harddrives. Security wise -- again, slowly will become a complete non-issue. Already is much safer with IE running in limited mode, phishing filters, google pre-site-visit malware warnings etc.

- Change for the sake of change is not always stupid, just like going to a new restaurant on a whim isn't stupid. It has a purpose -- breaking from the routine. Dif ppl get excited about dif things. I personally get excited about software, including OS's, even if they're only slightly better than previous ones, or JUST DIFFERENT...

Alright, then I shouldn't hear anything else about any kind of Active X exploit or vulnerability.

As for IE....I can't run on perceptive problems of users. Most users have no idea of what's going on in the background. Too many things "look" ok on the surface. I'm also not interested in how big the footprint is on the drive since 2k size dll's can create very serious security issues. I am a firefox user. However, I'm not satisfied with the degree by which all browsers (most certainly IE) will execute code that allows websites deep enough into the OS to cause problems. IE is and always has been the worst about this. If this were actually fixed, a large number of "drive by" infections could be stopped. Separation is the only logical solution.

I do agree that sometimes changes are needed to break from routine. But, that is change made for a reason. That is not change made for the sake of change.

You will continue hearing about ALL software exploits, because that's the nature of the beast... However, the frequency of zero-day exploits, and the REAL (financial) damage they cause, will continue to diminish. The temp remedy (workaround) shutting down some leaky dll will most probably be given quicker because it's simply easier now with everyone having an umbilical cord with mother MS or his favorite AV supplier... And with MS getting more into virtualization, it's safe to assume that in the future even processes that gain 'full' access to every file on your machine will eventually only get to see virtual COPIES of the file, with highly critical files always easily restored from a location that even 'full' access didn't have 'erase' access to...without a secondary authority request that you should never, ever, have to answer unless you are doing a complete harddrive/OS reformat. Kinda like UAC that basically tells you that if you are seeing this EXTRENELY RARE msg then you HAVE A VIRUS unless you're trying to MESS UP YOUR OWN PC because NOBODY needs access there for no reason whatsoever.

If you are in a particularly risky environment (banking etc) then just like you've survived just fine with Win98, then I'm sure you know that there are ALWAYS third party tools to boost your security to a level that even the most paranoid will accept as "safe"... Host intrusion, limiting user access to even his own files or on the network, firewalling, auditing, etc etc.

If you don't have millions in the bank, then you just don't gotta worry about security with even WinXP... Just back up your data, run automatic Windows Updates and an updated AV, and worst case if someone still manages to take over your PC, you're not gonna lose much more than a little time to reformat... I personally have NEVER met someone whose computer got hacked and lost thousands from his bank account. Statistically, it's simply more of a theoretical risk than something to really worry about for the average person... Corporations are a dif story of course... but they, too, again, have survived just fine from the beginning of the "PC on every worker's desk" age til today so I honestly don't see a real problem and I actually see it becoming less and less of a theoretical problem as software progresses...

I've clean installed 7 on 5+ year old hardware. A P4 2.8. I have 2GB RAM and did upgrade a couple of years ago to an Aero capable graphics card. It runs fine and all hardware is working.

I also clean installed it on an HP laptop 2.4 dual core w/ 4GB RAM. The 64Bit version of 7 runs faster than the 32Bit version of Vista.

I enjoy the challenge of installing a new OS, but had the easiest "challenge" with installing 7. I actually had 100% satisfaction with Vista preinstalled on my laptop, but 7 is prettier, runs a bit faster, and uses slightly less memory.

The problem now is at work we use XP, and probably will for at least another 3-4 years. One advantage of XP over Vista/7 is that the you can actually see network activity much more clearly in the network icon(s) in the taskbar tray!

Hmmm, I've never considered Vista a 'burn'. Probably just me I guess. As for your audience here at BETAnews, I'd have thought you knew your audience by now. You knew what the reaction would be, you had to. Finally, your daughter of course has the right to choose, but that's a far cry from advising people to not upgrade. I know, I know....go ahead with new hardware instead, but still I can't agree.
There are still under-the-hood security and other features that 7 has compared to XP that warrants an upgrade in any scenario. My wife likes XP too, she was reluctant for an upgrade to Vista. I got her a laptop, which had Vista on it and she loved Vista. Inherently, some people don't like change. It becomes an 'acquired taste' kind of thing. I wanted to upgrade her to 7 and again, she didn't want it...said it looked complicated and was too different, etc. I reminded her of the Vista situation, and she let me upgrade her laptop. When the beta was going to expire I was ready to put Vista back on and she wanted to keep 7, so I put the RC on. I'm sure that if your daughter used 7 for a while, she'd not only learn to like it, looks and all, but would probably even prefer it. If she hates it in 3 months then it won't be rocket science to go back to XP. Not saying that you should force it down her throat, but she just isn't the best example. I suppose my wife isn't the best example either, as in the same scenario another person could have chosen to downgrade, but my point is simply that especially when it comes to OSs, sometimes what the layman 'wants' or prefers may not be best for them. I'm not calling XP a demon or anything, just saying that 7 does have significant advances that warrants going ahead with an upgrade.
Why I'd tell people to upgrade over XP? Many reasons...including the fact that there's built in protection from the more damaging viruses and malware. Moving to 64bit if possible also adds to that protection, and adds protection at the kernel level.
Why over Vista? The simplest reason is the speed increase. You really reap the benefits in upgrading over Vista when it comes to speed and quickness of lower end systems. Vista was just too demanding. And you can run 7 Home Premium very nicely on systems that are sold with Vista Basic.
So, if you're in a position to advise people between upgrading or not, I still don't understand the decision to tell them to wait. Especially if their hardware is a bit less current or on the low power end, even if they're already running Vista....much more so from XP. It just doesn't seem like sound advice.

Your wife wouldn't want Windows 7 if she had to become an expert PC technician to get it done properly (i.e. no tears and no pulled hairs). Clearly the bottom line of this whole idiotic "story" is that if you CAN spend the time on TRYING Windows 7, then there is AT LEAST 90% CHANCE YOU WILL ENJOY WINDOWS 7 EVEN ON CRAPPY OLD MACHINES (1GB RAM OR MORE THOUGH).

Again, only TRY it if you HAVE upgraded an OS in the past..successfully. Otherwise there's 90% chance you WILL LOSE SOME DATA/FUNCTIONALITY AND CONSEQUENTLY HATE WINDOWS 7 DUE TO THE BAD TASTE IT LEFT IN YOUR MOUTH (your stupidity notwithstanding). C'est la vie!

Carmi basically said in a billion words what I said in only hrmmmm a million words hehehehehehe

Yes, only fools don't understand that for AT LEAST 95% of the population, upgrading from XP/Vista to Windows 7 will cost MANY MANY HOURS OF WORK... 20 HRS IS THE BARE MINIMUM YOU'D NEED TO SPEND ON BACKING UP THE DATA OF YOUR AVERAGE PERSON (default data locations on same partition as came from OEM) RESTORING IT, THE SOFTWARE, AND GETTING BACK TO THE POINT OF KNOWLEDGE IN THE OS AS IN THE PREVIOUS OS. THINGS ARE DONE DIFFERENTLY AND EVEN LEARNING A NEW LANGUAGE WHICH IS HIGHLY USEFUL (LIKE SPANISH IN THIS LOVELY CITY OF MINE) STILL COSTS TIME TO GAIN THE KNOWLEDGE BEFORE YOU PUT IT TO USE. IN OUR CASE, LEARNING THE GOODIES OF WINDOWS 7...

So yeah, as usual, it makes ZERO sense for the vast majority of people to UPGRADE to Windows 7. It makes most sense to get it on a new machine whenever that happens... Unless you actually KNOW you want Windows 7, in which case you're already happy to spend the time and effort to get there. Anyway these series of articles are retarded cuz they aren't aimed at the right audience. Betanews audience is mostly the type that WILL upgrade to Windows 7 on tech superiority ground only....

I'd just like to say that PC_Tool is probably the biggest idiot that uses this website. Why anyone pays attention to anything he writes, is beyond me.
I remember being abused by him when Vista appeared because I said that there was absolutely no reason for me to change from xp.
Now a few years down the line I most definately won the argument and the release of Windows 7 confirms that fact further.
I think the articles Carmi wrote made perfect sense. Why upgrade an old machine to 7 if it is working fine with xp and the user is happy.
Now wait for the tool to answer ... 10... 9... 8 ... here it comes ----

wow, haters=fans :) great work carmi!

So are all the commenters below nearly arguing from the same side? Bashing XP seems to be latest cool trend for Windows 7 fanboys now that Windows 7 has turned out to be an acceptable OS.

Carmi

Personally, thanks for your professionalism and (actually)taking the time to read (and respond to) the posts generated from your last two articles. Every debate requires a pro and a con point of view.

While I choose to disagree with some of your view points, I will continue to read and enjoy your articles.

You do give me a belly laugh sometimes as you remind me of the paranoid policies of the IT department of my company.

I am a techie risk taker, build my own machines (current box is an I7 flame thrower), enjoy testing betas and am an early adopter. I revel in the challenge of working through the 'bugs'.

Keep on tossing out your views, I'll be more civil in my responses.

I read the first article and I read the second article. While I would say the title is misleading to the position you present, I find that the two articles are consistent, the second being a clarification to the first.

In reading many of the comments below, it appears some people did not actually (or objectively) read either or both of the columns to conclusion.

It is clear to me you are giving the advice that people should weigh their INDIVIDUAL interests, whether or not their older system is functioning fine and serving their purposes, and what is at stake when you upgrade an OS, all things that it is wise to consider before performing such an upgrade. That makes sense to me. I have no idea why people would take exception to such advice, particularly when they can choose to ignore it if it doesn't apply to them. In short, while the title suggest no one should upgrade (and maybe that's as far as some people read), the meat of your article says it is not a good idea for everyone to blindly upgrade to the new OS though it is a good idea for some folks.

If I were to offer any suggestion at all it would be this; make the title of your article more accurately reflect what you intend to present. It may save you some misunderstanding as has clearly been the case in a number of these posts.

Wow, it's unusual that someone in the 'communication business' (LOL) writes a deliberately inflammatory column and then is a troll in the comments to that article!

Congratulations Carmi, you're working both sides of the aisle. Are you in some sort of competition at Betanews to see which writer gets the most comments to his column? Your credibility (if you ever had any) is gone.

This is freakin' hilarious! There are better things technology-wise to have a freakin' "hissy fit" over than the dos' or dont's of upgrading to Windows 7 :P . Like securing your PC, regardless of what OS you run! Some of you need to get your heads out of your asses.

And if you don''t like the articles then why do you waste your time responding over & over again about how much they suck. Say your piece and go away!

Another worthless article which could have been better written using only 3 words:

"I stand corrected" or "I was wrong" or "God, I suck" or...

Thank you for your rational, thoughtful contribution to the discussion.

This article is bs! For the same reason we should all be viewing black and white tv, not have mobile phones or use cars to travel. Windows 7 ( and yes even Vista) are upgrades that need to happen, the blogoshere demands it an the blogoshere is most of us if we like it or not. Im a mac user through and through and my experience of Windows 7 in vmware is very positive, getting my gf and parents onto it will not be much of an effort and the cool s*** it comes with will be most appreciated.

XP is too way too old, it doesnt even come close to the stuff we will start to need in the next 5-10 years and comes no way close to the start of getting rid of the OS experience we currently have (which is bad for all new customers).

Computers need to be at least as reliable as TV's, Fridge Freezers, DVD players, clocks, cookers, stereos etc if they are to become essential to EVERYONES life and at the moment XP and IE6 are the problem.

I'll wholeheartedly agree with you that computers need to be more reliable. Instant on, always functional, incredibly robust. We're at the Model T stage of reliability right now, and things need to get better.

But who defines what's "too old"? If XP's doing the job, cost effectively and reliably, for a person or company, who decides when it's "too old"? You? Or the person/department responsible for matching technology to business needs.

Last I checked, most people didn't buy new OSs because they offered lots of cool fecal matter. I hope your significant other and parents are very happy with your efforts.

From the many companies I deal with, the people that making these decisions are people that don't know how to turn on a PC. Many of these decisions are based from their personal experiences (mainly because they don't know what they are doing with a PC), and not the view of the end users, or power-users.

There are companies that still run Windows 98 using Office XP. Now how is that being productive in todays world. The incompatibility level with the outside world is embarrasing. Especially when some of these companies need to deal with video files or large graphic files... it's way too painful to watch.

Any computer that's capable of running Windows Vista (even if it's only Vista Home Basic) will be better off with Windows 7. Nearly all of the hardware in a Vista capable computer will be recognized out of the box in Windows 7. If a piece of hardware isn't recognized right away then the driver is probably available as a quick download on Windows Update. You will never, ever get this kind of experience in Windows XP or Vista.

Many people don't like change. They are frighten of change, so they stick with old Windows XP and very old Windows 98, very old software, mainly things they are familiar with and have control of. Most of the complainers of Vista, they have very old (ancient) computers and hardware. These people can't be helped.

And as far IT managers, they always come up with some BS story to justify their reasoning for not upgrading to Vista or Windows 7. Productivity will be compromised... that's BS. Windows 7 or Vista is not a show stopper for any company, what is a show stopper when IT wannabes find it very hard to live in 2009. Many of these IT people don’t utilize computer like secretaries, attorneys, accounts or any real working people, so they don’t have a clue or care of what people need to make their life easier.

I firmly believe that most IT managers are comfortable of what is (barely) running (running with band-aides and rubber-bands, PC rigging) and they are too opinionated and pigheaded to listen or open their eyes. They pretend to know more than anyone else. Many don't like nor can handle change and they are either lazy or so comfortable with their lack of updated skills, but they hide behind a great game of illusions and magic tricks. It’s tragic.

First, it's not tragic. It's reality. And most IT managers, if given the choice, wouldn't spend their days keeping old systems running with a McGyveresque combination of chewing gum and thumbtacks. IT managers aren't the gatekeepers: the CFOs and other people who control the budgets are. And it's those resources within any company that so often fail to understand the value of new technology.

Second, you've obviously never deployed a new operating system to thousands of corporate end users, then watched the number of calls to the help desk spike in the days following go-live. Companies are in business to make money, not put the coolest, newest toys on end-users' desks simply because they can. Technology of any generation is just the means to an end, something fanboys always fail to appreciate.

"Second, you've obviously never deployed a new operating system to thousands of corporate end users, then watched the number of calls to the help desk spike in the days following go-live."

Have you?

I have to wonder because one would assume such a massive deployment would *not* happen in one fell swoop. Ever. Test-group, and then by department, site by site, never more than 100 units at a time.

If it is something that must be done immediately, for all, then deployment groups are sent to each location/department and it is still managed on the "100 or less" unit level.

I have. In stages, taking every best practice associated with large-scale deployments into account. And no matter how small the group - pilot, team, department, there was STILL impact on the end-user and their reliance on support resources still increased in the immediate post-upgrade period. To assume any change happens seamlessly is delusional.

"To assume any change happens seamlessly is delusional."

Where did I say it was seamless?

Where did I imply it?

I did not comment *at all* on the post-upgrade support requirements.

But we're off-topic. This isn't the issue. The issue is that there are supposedly people you'd advise not to upgrade. This implies they are considering it (otherwise, you wouldn't have to waste your time advising them against it). Your daughter simply doesn't fall into that category. One would also assume large corporations have taken into account such things as increased support calls and have devised a method to limit them as best as possible, such as a staged migration. They don't need the advice either.

So...who are you advising, here?

I have seen it happen both ways, one company i did work for upgraded all their 2k boxes to XP in one long weekend, the fall out was bad......and the fact that around 1/2 the systems could barley run xp even after ram upgrades was another headache, in the end we found out the system wide upgrade happened because somebody in upper management got a new xp laptop and liked how it "Felt" and looked better then 2k, he ORDERED the IT guys to upgrade EVERYBODY to XP...then was mad when there where ALOT of problems.....(oh god the problems........months worth of people like chip having the same stupid issues over and over......if u dont get the chip refrance google "thewebsiteisdown")

test group method is normaly the best option BUT sometimes isnt viable either really.

Another company i worked for did the jump from 9x to XP in one shot with all new systems, replaced EVERY SYSTEM IN THE COMPANY(over 1000 boxes) then had to re-deploy the 9x and even a few of the 2k boxes to select departments/people because the company had software that ONLY worked on older windows versions, again it was a PAIN IN THE ASS, but it was good work for decent pay at the time.........

the move to 7 even from vista could cause the same problems, any time anything, even something small is changed it causes some users to become totaly lost and confused, no im not kidding, hell my own mother couldnt figuar out how to shut down server 2008 because shes so use to xp....rofl....

Thanks for making your points about why people may choose not to upgrade an OS. While many of the people here are vocal and passionate early adopters, there are many readers who read about new technology and quietly wish they could afford it. I'm a single mom working two jobs. I plan and save for my technology purchases and am usually part of the late majority in marketing terms.

Another factor for me is that I am blind and use a screenreader. I can't upgrade to an OS until the developer of my reader has it working well with that OS. That usually takes about a year after a new OS is released, and it means buying an upgrade for the screenreader first. That makes upgrading my OS cost much more than just the cost of buying Windows 7.

Finally, and this will annoy some people here, I don't think Microsoft added real value for me in Vista. Most of the changes were visual, and the user control screens would have slowed me down. If I'm going to upgrade, I want Microsoft to clearly explain what I can do with its new OS that I can't do with what I've got now. Its marketing is so focused on its image that the benefits get lost somewhere. They don't build a burning "I gotta have it" feeling when I read their ads and blog posts.

Will I upgrade to Windows 7? Probably. I can't keep my current machine running forever. Will I buy it before next year? Probably not.

Ah well, the site is pretty good, this article and its original are pretty bad and yes, things aren't very technical anymore. (I've been coming here forever), but then where does one go for tech stuff - Ars is flat, Neowin is empty(ish), Slashdot can be very good but I just don't have time to get thru all the comments.
But - why you would recommend against installing Win7 just beats me entirely, more secure, better control panel apps, better memory management, great hardware compatibility and drivers out of the box, runs great on "legacy" systems, looks great etc!! Sure I'm not talking about a big commercial environment where there are a lot of other factors in play. But in a SMB environment I'd have to consider it for clients - maybe even NOW using the RC - dual booting, plenty of test time - its got a lot going for it.

Carmi - you got it wrong and then gave a dreadful justification. Write a decent critique of one of W7s features - much more useful.

"why you would recommend against installing Win7 just beats me entirely."

Not sure where you got that from. I'm simply advising against wholesale upgrading of existing hardware in favor of upgrading at hardware refresh. Not sure why that's so difficult a concept for some.

"I'm not talking about a big commercial environment where there are a lot of other factors in play. But in a SMB environment I'd have to consider it for clients - maybe even NOW using the RC - dual booting, plenty of test time - its got a lot going for it."

You fail to explain the rationale for why SMBs would be candidates. If anything, they're more vulnerable to productivity hiccups associated with wholesale OS upgrades. When you "consider it for clients," please pop in here and let us know how your advice was received, and how IT was affected afterward.

I'm a little more curious as to why you would consider rolling out a time-bombed Release Candidate to customers. That cannot possibly go well down the road. I can guarantee that blows up as a customer service issue later even if they say that they completely understand that it is for testing purposes only.

"if you're interested in having a frank, open and sometimes tumultuous debate over the merits of a position I've taken, advice I've given, or a point I've made, then game on. By all means, leave a comment that outlines your position and why you think I've veered clearly into lunar orbit."

Apparently this was not meant to imply he'd actually take part in any of that discussion....

Really, Mr. Tool?

Took ya long enough. :p

You can put your stopwatch down, now. I was a little busy, you know, working, taking care of my family.

Ouch. Now I feel bad.

Oh, wait... sorry. That was just lunch. Gotta stop eating @ Chipotle. ;)

I believe that everyone has an opinion but telling people how spend to their money is wrong. Maybe windows 7 will be a great OS,but don't tell people how to spend their money.

So what you're saying, then, is there's no longer any room on this planet for expert advice, guidance or opinion. Maybe in your world. Not in mine.

advice is only welcome if it agrees with the persons preformed opinions, otherwise its attacked or ignored.

welcome to the real world...sorry i cant help the fact that it sucks!!!

looks like all the trash talk did get to her if she had to write another article responding to it

her? You sure what you're talking about? :P

Find me a writer who completely ignores the audience at hand and I'll find you a writer who won't be writing for too much longer. Keys to success in any communication-related business is knowing who you're talking to and about.

Speaking of which, I think you completely missed the boat in your own case. My wife may beg to differ vis-a-vis your calling me a "her". Nice.

"She, like most of us, will get into Windows 7, eventually. But it'll be on her terms. Not anyone else's."
My gosh, it's an OS, not a religious crusade or a deep moral choice. This is getting so silly.

But, bully for you. I put RC 1 on my kid's computers (a 21, 10 and 6 year old use them). Know what? They could care less about computers, but the 21 and 10 year old both made comments about how things worked better. And it -does- work smoother. Sadly, the 6 year old can't play magic school bus anymore...but that game is much older than she is. She did like how her wallpapers change from time to time, though.

Like I said, different strokes. I'm thrilled that your kids could care less. My own kids obviously have decidedly different views of the PC world, and when they choose to either go along with dead old dad or ignore him, I tend to listen.

As much as I enjoy mucking around with Windows 7 on my own time and on my own machines, I've decided the keys to domestic bliss don't lie in forcing anyone else in my household to drink the same Kool Aid. When she wants to make the move, I'll be happy to help her make it.

I suspect that most of the people who disagree with you are not IT managers responsible for a large number of PCs. I agree with your position that, a great as Windows 7 is, it doesn't really make sense to install it as a total upgrade at large sites. Upgrades on a case-by-case basis are a different story. Sure I have 7 RTM installed on my personal machines. That's my job: Evaluate new technology. Most of my users have just gotten used to Vista. Some are still on XP until they get new machines. We even have some users on 2000 since they have no need of newer machines yet. I only upgrade the OS with the purchase of new machines unless a user must run software not supported by an older OS. My users appreciate it. Some people say it's easier to support just one OS so everyone should be upgraded at the same time but users of legacy OSes don't need much OS support. All the significant bugs are long gone. As far as security, we don't seem to have a problem with our mixed networks. Good third-party security programs exist for all OSes.

Interesting. If anything, I would think that of all people who hear about XP's flaws, it would be IT managers. Windows 7 is far advanced of XP when it comes to memory management and overall user experience.
Granted, the user experience may just be an opinion, but from what I've experienced personally and have read from others, the difference is noticable.
At the software company where I work, sure we could probably still be on Windows NT. But as XP was an improvement over NT, so is 7 an improvement over XP. Again, that's just based on my own experience with both.

guru_v, stop spreading FUD. Win7 is far more then simple GUI improvements and pretty colors. If you are that uninformed then perhaps you should find a different forum to troll on.

"Windows 7, to me, is a dolled up version of 3.1,"

Funny as hell.

You sir, are high. Please pass it around.

Thanks.

You act like you learned who your readers were, after posting that last article. This website is called betanews.com eh, do you think my grandma (whos is dead) might read this site?

Come on now, even looking at the title someone who is interested in the latest and greatest cutting edge stuff will most likely be interested. Windows 7 being a great example. So why would you think to post an article, ripping on the latest and greatest os by microsoft? And how you shouldn't update to it. That last article obviously and ill repeat was meant to do nothing more then create as you put it "Behive of activity" what did you think was going to happen?

Gee I thought this was some media general news site where common users and folks come to read. Oh wait. Read the url.

Even though I could whip it to Windows 7 before she's finished breakfast, she likes the interface and doesn't see any reason to upset the apple cart.

Apple cart...interesting choice of words... :)

Let me get this straight. You are wrote your first story to appeal to the average every day person. Yet, you describe the audience here on betanews as technophiles. So....why not next time try writing for your target audience, as opposed to writing articles for an audience that will not read this site.

Last I checked, anyone with a browser and an Internet connection could read this site. My mother-in-law, in fact, reads this site (say hello.) While the audience that actively participates here is obviously far more tech forward than middle-of-the-road mothers-in-law, a little bit of broader context isn't always such a bad thing.

Personally...I'd prefer more articles on the merits of technology, instead of so many flamebait articles and opinion pieces. I got into computers and development because I enjoyed it, not to join some stupid crusade against company X or operating system Y. They all have their merits and flaws.

Can we get past this, drop the tired bias and be a little more objective?

Look, I truly understand why some people do not feel like there is a need to upgrade to Windows 7 and without a doubt I do not blame you nor I will criticize you. I was one of the people that skipped Vista completely (due to my own ignorance) and I was also going to do the same with W7.

The reason for this was unsupported hardware. Existing hardware that kept on working on XP simply stopped working on Vista because manufactorers could not be bothered to create drivers for Vista (and now W7). But I already I skipped Vista all together and that's like 3 years and more. Now we have Windows 7. I was angry at MS, so angry, I was aiming at skipping W7 as well.

However, I realized after I skipped Windows Vista, I missed at least 3 years of new technology. I knew almost nothing about Vista, where the new settings were etc. So if I continued the same route as Vista, I would have stayed in the past with old technology even more. I could not allow my self to do this sort of damage to my self. So I downloaded Windows 7, and swapped some hardware and I have everything working.

I have been using Windows 7 for about a month and a half now and I can genuinely say I could never go back to Windows XP again. When I used Windows XP, I was in love in its classic business like look and its overall operation however, I have been using Windows 7, I have installed heaps of program and the OS, unlike XP, has not slowed down believe it or not! How is this possible? Install a few programs on Windows XP, and the system start up just slows down. Windows 7 on the other hand is still flying as when it was first installed.

My wife is a teacher, and a common complaint they have is that the school still choose macs for school, while most of the teachers and their children are familiar and yes -prefer- Windows. Everyone I know uses a PC, not because they are poor, ignorant sheep, but PCs work just fine.

I realize that when you are watching Hanna Montana or some other cute hollywood flic they show people using macs. Go GO Jobs marketing muscle. I personally know one person who just bought a mac. Everyone else I know uses PCs. But go ahead and continue the ignorant myths about the vast mac superiority, and how clueless all of the rest of us are.

If anything...the fact that Jobs has deigned to allow people to run Windows on their macs tells me that he realizes it's a necessity...hmmm.

Written on my Vista-Mac.

Your comments are just what any self respecting techie would expect from an Apple snob. Cry me a river, your jealousy is showing. Do us all a favor and find a Mac board to whine on.

Soon to be a W7-Mac. Damn, this is fun!

First, I love the two Macs we've brought home over the past year.

Second, I recognize quite clearly that not everyone on the planet should be going over to the other side of the Apple orchard. Like I've said before and continue to say now, different strokes. The fact that you HAVE such choice enhances whatever OS you end up with.

What do you think... your daughter going to school having an OS that is 8 years old, and looks like it too, or a brand new cool looking one? Why do you think so many teenagers by Apple products? Because they LOOK cool, and I'm sure if you gave her the choice, which I doubt you have judging from your last paragraph, she would want the latest and greatest.

My daughter doesn't care about whether her PC's desktop "looks cool." She just wants to get her work done. Not everything in her life is or needs to be a fashion statement. Heaven forbid my parenting ever puts her in a position where that actually comes to fruition.

Being a developer with MSDN access, I'm posting here using Windows 7 final-proper-actual-release and it's rather wonderful. I can't remember, even back in the install-from-three-5-inch-floppies days of DOS when you could actually install a Microsoft operating system in less than half an hour!

But, as a user of this site for the nine years it has been around, I do miss the days when people posted technical comments and got informed answers.

I caught this article a bit late but without being an apologist for Microsoft about a month or so ago I 'upgraded' both our XP Pro machines to W7 RC. (32 bit).
Mine is a 5 year old desktop (AMD Athlon 64 3400 (2400Ghz) 2gb RAM) and passed the Microsoft compatibility test pretty much in full. Anyway I was so impressed with the ease of “upgrading” and the way it worked and looked that I thought I would give it a try on my wife's laptop HP510 (Mobile Pentium Centrino 2275Ghz 500mb RAM). I ran the compatibility test and not surprisingly the rather basic laptop failed in some key areas (in particular the RAM) but W7 was working so wonderfully on my desktop my wife felt rather left out so I decided to give it a try but was ready to reformat and revert to XP Pro if necessary.
I have used every OS from DOS through W3.1 right up to this W7 RC and I have owned them all except Vista but I have worked on that a lot. I have always been very cautious about installing any new OS on a computer not specifically designed for it but tried this W7 on the desktop simply because a format and reinstall of XP Prof. was due. I am astonished how well this W7 works on both my desktop which even now is a very capable machine but more especially the HP laptop which as I say fails the minimum spec. in several ways not least only 500MB of RAM. Both work better and faster with W7 than they did with XP and I mean REALLY better and faster, so much you can see it! It doesn’t seem that the less than recommended amount of RAM on the laptop affects it at all. The backward compatibility of hardware and software seems unlimited as far as I can see. W7 is an extraordinary piece of work and yes I have pre-ordered W7 Prof! I thought my desktop was due for a trip to the recycling centre but W7 seems to have given it a few more years.

Conspiracy theory as applied to the tech space. Fascinating...

(Oh, one more little thing: the name's "Levy". Thanks.)

I really didn't feel strongly enough about the first article to comment on it, but I've found that those who react to criticism with the "I guess I struck a nerve" line in reality usually mean "I screwed up but I don't want to admit it so I'll blame my audience".

Lame...

"I've found that those who react to criticism..."

I'd love to see your research.

"..in reality usually mean 'I screwed up...'"

Um, no. When I actually do screw up, I actually do say, "I screwed up." Didn't say it here, so your inference is just a bit off.

"I'd love to see your research."

Says the guy who didn't provide a SINGLE footnote for an article containing numerous unsourced claims to a guy posting a couple of sentences in a comments thread...

Not saying every article has to have a bibliography, just that those living in glass houses...

Actually, I'm kinda scared about what problems I might run into...

I need to use mine for college :/

Precisely. For a lot of people, keeping the lights on and avoiding disaster is their only goal. If pursuing something new because others say it's cool or somehow "better" exposes them to risk of failure, they'll stay where they are.

They'll make the switch later on, when it's more mainstream, less risky and kinda the default when their old machine dies and they need to buy a new one.

"If pursuing something new because others say it's cool or somehow "better" exposes them to risk of failure, they'll stay where they are."

So you find out the situation. You listen to what they need, educate, inform. I still cannot think of a single reason beyond the obvious (hardware/software compatibility, cost, or "don't wanna") as to why an upgrade wouldn't be advised.

If the hardware will run it, if the software will run *on* it, and if the cost isn't an issue: It is more secure, it is better behaved, it is more polished, and it is more stable than XP ever was.

Devoting two entire articles to "they don't have the time/don't care" seems beyond pointless to me.

"if the cost isn't an issue..."

You obviously live on a different planet than I do. Cost is always an issue. And the dimensions of that cost extend deep into the operational capacity of every one of us, and every company that uses this stuff.

Missed the point.

Cost is an *obvious* issue. If the cost is not something one is willing to pay, the obvious answer is "Don't upgrade"

Don't tell me your entire article (or rather, both of them) we're merely to point out the obvious.

I was hoping the articles went a little deeper than the obvious. Was I wasting my hope?

No, I don't cost out my time.
I do not work 24/7, therefore, my time is exactly that. My time.
I don't hire people to walk the dog, play with Junior, etc.

Nor do I have much time for those who do.

Time with family is priceless. My point - which you deftly missed - was that it is SO valuable that I'd rather spend it walking the dog with her and tracking the ISS from our darkened backyard and NOT slaving over her PC on an upgrade she doesn't want.

"My point...NOT slaving over her PC on an upgrade she doesn't want."

So your point is that people who flat out do not want to upgrade...shouldn't?

You cannot be serious. That took two whole articles to point out?

Thank you, Captain Obvious?

Wow...just...wow.

Can your next article be about how people who are allergic to peanuts...shouldn't eat them? I'm sure it will be just as enlightening.

That depends. Are YOU allergic to them? I might have a new thesis, then.

Sorry, nope.

Hate shellfish though. Enough to make me gag. Perhaps an article about how internet jerks who hate shellfish should eat more of them? ;)

I know I'm not being "nice". I can deal with it. I am sure you can. Nice is boring. Still would love to hear some reasoning that doesn't fall into the "obvious" category though.

"Windows 7...Because We Can't Count To Ten."

Oh...wait...that contest is over. Oops...sorry ;)

Hope you're having a good summer anywayz.

That's easy...10 is right after banana. ;)

My FREE time is worth $25/hr at least right now. This is why I will NOT cook my own food, before that spend time getting the ingredients, and after it clean the mess in the kitchen, if I can get the same level of food bought from an expert -- a good restaurant -- for cheaper overall (workhour cost) WITHOUT having to WORK on my free time... I may be lazy, but you are cheap... Actually, I'd rather work 5 hrs extra each week in MY FIELD than clean/cook for 5 hrs total weekly...

Installing Win 7 for many people is an intellectual exercise, or just curiosity-satisfying. For many, it is EXACTLY LIKE WORK. For me it's somewhere in the middle...I'll upgrade from Vista to Win7 cuz I want the benefits (and will find workarounds to any problem), but I ain't so eager to do it so quickly due to laziness mostly...

you must be trying to be the pc worlds version of house......to late, i been there for years ROFL!!

"The old XP machine that my daughter now uses, however, will keep XP until it fails for good. Even though I could whip it to Windows 7 before she's finished breakfast, she likes the interface and doesn't see any reason to upset the apple cart."

Since this is the only tidbit you've given us as to your reasoning behind said article, can we explore that a bit more in-depth?

Question 1: Specs?

Question 2: Was this decision hers or yours?

Question 3: What was the decision based on?

This is really all you have given us to go on in specifics regarding your reasoning behind your original article other than claims of "painful hours of tweaking", which is far from specific at all.

What I am looking for, beyond cost (in dollars, not some subjective time-valuation), is what reasons you might provide for a system that can run Windows 7 *well* to not be upgraded.

If it simply boils down to: "Don't upgrade systems to it that won't run it well", then I fear we've all wasted our time on that little gem of obviousness.

The only question that matters: #2. She doesn't want it. End of story.

Not every tech decision is always based on purely technology-focused underpinnings. The human factors associated with any planned migration ultimately have a greater impact on how well that tech will be leveraged than the specs themselves.

When my kid's needs and wants realign to the point that it makes sense to move her to another OS - whatever that may be - we'll pull out the spec sheet and make the decision. Together.

"The only question that matters: #2. She doesn't want it. End of story."

Look, I know that can't be it. You've dedicated two entire articles to *something*...I am just not finding, in either article, anything concrete. You say some people "shouldn't" upgrade....this implies there are people who *are* considering it who should *not* do it. (this takes your daughter out of the picture)

Who are these people? What is their situation? Nothing painfully obvious, please. No, "I don't wanna", "it's too expensive", or "it won't work on my system".

Hard, concrete reasons why an upgrade in a certain situation would be a Bad Idea™.

You're free to come up with your own implications until your fingers get tired from all the typing. That they're completely disconnected from the intent of both pieces seems anathema to you.

For the record:

If you WANT to upgrade and are willing to invest the time, resources and risk associated with doing so, then knock yourself out.

If you DON'T, then don't.

"If you WANT to upgrade and are willing to invest the time, resources and risk associated with doing so, then knock yourself out.

If you DON'T, then don't."

And there, it would seem, we have it. This was the point, then? To devote two entire articles to the obvious?

Please tell me I am wrong....

you're not wrong in this case... the time and effort for a personal user is nothing under 7 as i've come to find out

just don't bother arguing for long with these folks, thick skulled i tell you ;)

Hey now! :p

lol

It's good to see that the writers at betanews now understand there readers. From day one i figured this bunch to be techno/early adopters due to the nature of willingness to beta test untested software. Newbs have cnet for there dose of old proven stuff. We come here for the new fangled stuff that holds the promise of cool features.

basically saying...
I can say what I want but I'm actually a crybaby even when I pretend that I have thick skin...
Saying you have thick skin doesn't mean much when it's actually not so. I can't fly even if I say I can.

The media, and betanews included, needs to really get out of its propaganda mode...maybe the switch is stuck and nobody actually wants to jiggle it back but instead, applied some extra gorilla glue to it.

As a "news" site you "writers" need to present data and facts and keep your own spin out of it.

We all multitask right? If I need to install, reinstall, or whatever else with whatever app or program, I initiate the process and proceed with my work out time, ie, gym, exercise, health and well being. In other words, no time loss.

Don't know about you, but something I do for family I wouldn't factor cost into it, but perhaps, there are some who devalue their family members by putting certain monetary values on some things.

Go figure...the fourh paragraph from the bottom beginning with "And at the end of the day..." should perhaps be followed by the person who utters those same words and thoughts.

"As a 'news' site you 'writers' need to present data and facts and keep your own spin out of it."

We can agree to disagree on this one, but in the big bad world of 'news' and 'writers' there is ample space for both unbiased news as well as opinion-based writing. Every medium offers - or should offer - ample opportunity for both, and I shudder at what'll happen if we ever forget that.

Freedom of the press. I highly recommend you read up on it. It's eye opening stuff.

"We all multitask right? If I need to install, reinstall, or whatever else with whatever app or program, I initiate the process and proceed with my work out time, ie, gym, exercise, health and well being. In other words, no time loss."

Sounds like an interesting project management strategy for the next large scale upgrade initiative I recommend to a client. I'm sure that'll make it completely seamless and invisible to their end-users.

"Freedom of the press. I highly recommend you read up on it. It's eye opening stuff."

I read and like what I read and like...freedom of the public as well. But and there are "buts" for everything. I could go buy a copy of Mad magazine for their take on current affairs, or pickup a tabloid to see who gave birth to an alien robotic wolf baby, or I could go to a professional news site that just delivers facts. Betanews used to just deliver facts I believe, but I guess in this day and age, things have to be spiced up. I for one, think technology sites should just be about factual technical data.

"Sounds like an interesting project management strategy for the next large scale upgrade initiative I recommend to a client. I'm sure that'll make it completely seamless and invisible to their end-users."

I commented on your comment about upgrading for your daughter. On a larger scale...there are such things as unattended scripted installs my friend. Technical analysts should know all of these facts. It's a big world with much to learn isn't it?

Thanks for the suggestion. I've had Ubuntu running on an old beast in the basement. She's stared at it with interest, but so far hasn't asked for me to bring it upstairs. Maybe soon...

And this is why i can't stand reading news here anymore (the title says it all.) Official writers of a major news site who all write with a personal (and different) opinion is bad enough, but that they actually care so much about what readers say about their articles that they feel like they have to cool things down afterwards, and show it off at the very top, center of the site, makes it feel uncomfortably too much like they consider this their personal rant-blog rather than professional job.

First time here, and i agree, this commentary is so off key

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you'd also probably take exception if I DIDN'T respond to reader input. My apologies for not being able to please you.

Last I checked, writing analyst opinion-type pieces required me to take a position on a given topic. If you choose to call it a "personal rant-blog", then you have every right to do so.

Well analyst opinion-type articles obviously strike nerves. Wall Street Journal. Facts and nothing else. Love it. Why can't software-news be the same? It CAN. It's just nobody who wanted to try it yet.

I have never expected any article-writers to respond to any readers. What's the point? You shouldn't have to. I don't see the point with comments at all here since this is supposed to be about news. Not about debating.

We want facts. Who cares about your opinion? This isn't your personal blog, Carmi. It's your professional job. If you separate them, you won't struck nerves and you won't have to ponder about whether or not you "pleased" your readers.

Patman, If registering for the site required one to take some kind of tech knowledge quiz I might agree with you. But the fact is that any bozo who Googles a hot new bit of hardware/software is likely to find this site. There's no cover charge, no bouncer and no queue..anyone can get on here, and unfortunately, a fair number of hopelessly biased fanboys and ignoramuses do so. Frequently (sigh).

I agree that.. any bozo can find anything on the internet with the help of Google or various other search engines. But you're missing my point. That bozo isn't the part of the core base of this site. I can't remember who wrote the article, but was only a few months ago that the files totally moved over to fileforum and Betanews was going to get 'more technical'. And well, Carmi's article was not at all directed at the.. more technical people.

So first off let me say I'm glad you seem to have taken something away from comments/reaction to your Don't Upgrade article. You're not taking it personally,learning about your audience, and hopefully how to engage them (without causing a flame war). My only comment would be.. shouldn't you have done this a bit sooner? Just looking at the site's name, "Betanews", that's a pretty clear indication that programs/articles here aren't intended for the trailing edge folks (your mother-in-law and daughter examples included) but the fearless, early adopting big spenders you described.

Exactly what I was thinking.

exactly

Agreed. I am a very long time viewer here but these days I only come around for a good laugh. BetaNews is no longer a site for news about betas.

Wholeheartedly agree. People come here because they like to be on the bleeding edge and find new info about the latest products. If I want to read reasons on why I shouldn't upgrade or stuff I should consider when upgrading, I would have hit up cnet.com. That is where these sets of articles would best belong, in my humble opinion. I really think BN needs to get back to it's roots and go back to what most of the readers here remember as the "Good ole days", you know back when httpd.confused used to be around before he was run off by the editors removing all of his reviews because people disagreed with him.

That's a bit harsh.. All the release info and reviews are on fileforum, and software is still covered here on BetaNews proper. Personally I'm just glad the site is still around. There have been some dark days (were you around for the eFront debacle?) but I'm not inherently against all types of technology news. I just don't think this is the proper forum for dumb'ed down stuff.

Don't get me wrong, I think the site is great, but it has moved away quite a bit from "beta" news. I was here when we were covering longhorn, before it was ever called vista, and I was here for several other major milestones. The reporting in those days covered actual software news which I really loved reading. I wish more of it was done in a manner befitting the intended audience of this site.

@FixXxer,
I guess this is the new social compact of BN, as expressed by their marketeers' (or for that matter, has more than likely been devised by their "Consultants"). it's called "engage your audience".
ROFL!

I could have. But sometimes, you write a piece knowing it'll spark discussion. You always hope that this discussion will stay professional and avoid descending into flame war territory. But that's obviously not always possible.

I'd rather have the discussion than not. There's nothing sadder than silence.

Seems to me that everyone his missed the point, this was an editorial. You as the author are supposed to have an opinion about which you are writing. If this was strictly "news" I would agree with the rest of you.

PC_Tool: "I have to wonder because one would assume such a massive deployment would *not* happen in one fell swoop. Ever. Test-group, and then by department, site by site, never more than 100 units at a time."

I've done rollouts of new systems for one of the oil companies, there was no small group of people you do then wait an see what happens. We rolled out almost 1000 machines in a little over 2 weeks, no test groups, they have done the testing on the test-bench. That is how fortune 500 companies and the like operate for the most part, that I have personally seen. At my current job, it is a little slower paced, but even having things tested, not everything goes right every time

No kidding. Take Simon & Garfunkel's "Sounds of Silence." Very sad.

"We rolled out almost 1000 machines in a little over 2 weeks, no test groups, they have done the testing on the test-bench. "

Test-bench = test group. Same function.

And for that 1000 machines, I assume you only had 3-4 people deploying them all? Doubtful. My comment revolved more around the ratio of people:deployments.

Any situation where there are more than 100 units to deploy (and I have been there) involve either our entire group or, if that is not possible, contractors to aid in over-seeing and managing the deployment. We still manage to keep it to a bare minimum of 3 IT employees per 100 units, and we stick around for a few days to make sure things go well. Things go *much* smoother this way. In the event issues arise, we're always no more than one phone call and at most 4 hours away (instant via remote).

True dat. I used to be a newsposter at a game site and it amazed (and depressed) me how nothing seemed interesting enough for people to actually TALK about.

As to the original article...although I don't question the decision to keep with XP, I question what will happen when the OS fails at some point. XP isn't exactly reliable on a long term basis. This is why I at least loved Vista, and was happy to recommend it to friends and family.

Certainly, repairing it isn't usually a hell of a lot of work, but it can be a major annoyance.

I have had to do 1k-3k unit deploys/upgrades with as few as 8 people, its HELL specly when they want it done in a weekend(even a long 3-4 days weekend) some companies are DUMB when it comes to that stuff, your way is better at 3 per 100, but alot of companies just cant understand that having more tech support=less downtime/headaches and better availability of help when its needed.

as to this artical, I see ZERO value in side grading to win7/server 2008 r2 when server 2008 sp2 is as fast, as stable and less prone to buggs/problems with software and drivers then win7/r2 are now, sure in a year or so when sp1 is out for win7/r2 then it will be a good move most likely, but for most home users with more then 2 computers buying technet and just using server 2008 web edition would be a better move then moving to win7 right now.

I have a system setup with 7 and R2(dual boot) its nice BUT its got its buggs, some apps both new and old that just work on 2k8/vista WONT WORK AT ALL on 7 or wont work properly, its FRUSTRATING AS HELL, you gotta use "XP MODE" to get some of them working......

so yeah, i agree with part of the artical, but not all of it, I never advise upgrading to any new MS-OS till sp1 is out, at least not for people who are less tech/windows savvy then I am, it just leads to the stuff like the vista hate that so many people hold(even if they never used vista themselves outside of bestbuy demo systems)

I moved to 2k in beta but kept 98se installed in dualboot for games and older apps, once 2k was more mature(sp1) it was my main os i didnt deploy it for friends/family till sp1 or even sp2 for some people.

xp...i used for 8 months and moved back to 2k due to to many buggy updates marked critical(i was a beta tester for 2k and xp, and even ME...) xp seemed great till ms pushed out bad updates...

desided long ago to stick with server side versions of windows on my personal machiens, server 2003(xp with the buggs worked out) and xp x64(server 2003 x64 in pro mode) and 2008 have been wonderful, faster then their workstation/desktop counterparts, less buggy, overall just far more fun to use.

btw, technet for US buyers with promo code is 261.75 and u get 10 licences for each ms app/os that requires activation, some of these keys/codes are multi activation(think its 1-2 per product) others are just like normal retail keys.

far better VALUE for a home user/geek then buying retail or even OEM copys of ms software from the store :)

You can also get free windows copies from ms reps at events, just walk up to the ms booth and ask for a free copy of what you want :)

I have a suggestion for PCTools. Why doesn't he build a Carmilevy voodoo doll and stick pins in it and give the real person a break. This verbal war and animosity is totally childish.