EggXpert

No,my answer will be definitely no.

but some guys wil say yes

 Windows kicks Linux to the curb

Why I love Windows 7, hate Linux, and think the Mac is lame

So educated ppl, what is your point of view?

I don't know about others, but I am kind of the price to pay so much for an OS (which I never purchase one yet).  I am leaning towards Linux in the future, but still might a long wait before I will able to handle or able to use Linux.

I just posted this morning some links to missives about Vista, and Ballmer's comments to industry about XP.

 All I could think of if I was a CEO or ITS head of one of those corporations to whom Ballmer was referring was; "Hummmm, maybe we should think about switching to Linux."

Whether Linux (and Mac's OS/X) eat away significantly at Windows 7 is the question.  But clearly Ballmer is in a fantasy land in bringing out Windows 7 (they and we hope) in 2010, and telling people they had better switch to Vista now or they will lose customers.  They didn't switch to Vista in the first place because of the cost and the problems.  While two years has probably replaced two-thirds of the computers in industry to more compatible ones, and Vista has been greatly improved, it is a doomed OS.   A reject.  Done.  Kaput.  Windows 7 looks to be a much better answer provided MS doesn't muck it up.  But the answer should come before the threat of yanking XP from the ranks of still available...because ITS is not going to swiftly shift to a new OS.  MS already taught them recently they cannot trust you.

 If MS pushes real hard, ITS will look for more reliable and stable answers.  (Stability and security are paramount in any business, as is cost.).  They will look elsewhere and at systems in place today and fit their needs.  Linux is there if ITS is willing to put in the training...which they would anyway for Vista or Windows 7.

No. They'll all continue to exist. Windows 7 will be what Vista should have been.

What will be vital for MS is for them to finish the tool they're creating for running older software on newer versions of Windows. If it can work seamlessly then people will have less reason to not upgade at least.

I think it boils down to a mathematical formula,

Windows 7: An Arm and a leg

Some versions of Linux: Free

Answer: Linux lives on baby!

lol.

Penewah!

I would have to agree with Scooder here, with todays economy so shaky people don't want to waste money on buying new OSs just cause they are new once they are proven stable and able to be used by the nonprofessional computer users yes they will buy them but until the bugs are fixed they will stick with their older OSs or use the free ones, so although I7 is looking pretty good right now Linux and Mac will not fall to the wayside just yet>

Windows 7 will not "kill" Linux.

I'm sure there are some users that went to linux because of the Vista launch problems and might return if 7 comes into the world more smoothly, however, keep in mind that in other parts of the world Linux is much more mainstream than it is here in America.

Over in Europe for example it is foundational for many companies; just look at the amount of tempelate and language content available for open office in French, German, Spanish, ect.  

The main group of Linux users got into it for the ability to work with the code however they wanted or needed to, and to be part of the open source community, so even if they end up needing a machine with 7 on it for something I doubt that many of them will leave Linux behind.

Mark

I say no,Windows 7 will still be commercially sold,and it practically is the closest Windows operating system I've seen LIKE Linux.

The average consumer "might" prefer Win. 7. But people who run servers will probably prefer using Linux. Less system usage(lower power bills) and it's free.

 

so what if Windows 7 is free dreaming

Definitly dreaming there IG

dragunover:

I say no,Windows 7 will still be commercially sold,and it practically is the closest Windows operating system I've seen LIKE Linux.

The average consumer "might" prefer Win. 7. But people who run servers will probably prefer using Linux. Less system usage(lower power bills) and it's free.

 

 

Less power usage? Not sure I ever heard of that one before. If the hardware is the same, the power usage is the same as well. The OS itself might be more efficient, but that doesn't amount to anything in the real world in regard to high load performance, even if you have just a file server. 

Windows 7 will not take down Linux. Linux has its place and will continue to occupy it. As previously mentioned, Linux is free, so in essence it has no competitors. You can't take down what's given away for free. Also, many of the enterprise versions of Linux that many ITS departments use aren't free, as they often come with support packages.

HOGHAULER:

Definitly dreaming there IG

With torrents as easy to get to as they are, IG isn't dreaming all that much. Its like Robin Hood. Robbing the rich to feed the poor (or needy). In this circumstance, there are those of us who need to try out Windows 7, and may afterward be too lazy to reformat with XP. 

 

Microsoft screwed it all up when they cranked up their prices on their OS. I can understand $100 for an XP Pro license (Which is what I paid for it in 2003), but $400 for Vista Ultimate? Way to fuel to the pirate fire Microsoft. 

M$ get off their fat wallets and give something away for free your the dreamer there XR.

HOGHAULER:

M$ get off their fat wallets and give something away for free your the dreamer there XR.

 

I didn't say they would give something away for free. I'm saying enough of us will be annoyed and p****d off enough about their idiotic prices that they'll take it for free anyway. Not saying I have or will do so, as all my copies of XP are legit, but people will get fed up sooner or later. Windows 7 needs to sell for at most $200 for the premium model to be reasonable. A glorified Windows XP that took 7 years to improve is not my idea of a $400 operating system.

I sorta didn't take the statement as he was positing that they give it away free, but I agree if he was saying they should certainly drop the price down a little bit, but thus is the market, and competition, which there practically isn't one, since the majority of us are like Lab Rats, hitting that old lever for a food pellet, when it comes to windows.

I'm just sort of surprised, and this may be a naive statement b/c I certainly don't know all the finer details of hammering out an OS, and the certain aspects that are proprietary, but seems someone would step up and fund and fuel a comparable OS with all the needed features. But alas I also understand you would have to get the hardware and software folks on board playing ball too. Is it all that impoosible? Maybe I'm just too optimistic.

Penewah! 

Ok I was only joking with you there XR and I do agree with you on the fiasco they call Vista. PC MAX rag put out a story last year about I7 being worked on and hitting the shelves this year for under a $100, so I'm beta testing it now and had never upgraded from XP until the beta I7 came out, I would not waste my money on Vista after all the CR*P came out with the high prices and problems they were having. As for Linux I have about 5-7 of their OS's too but only running Ubuntu combined with Mythbuntu for my HTPC.

HOGHAULER:

Ok I was only joking with you there XR and I do agree with you on the fiasco they call Vista. PC MAX rag put out a story last year about I7 being worked on and hitting the shelves this year for under a $100, so I'm beta testing it now and had never upgraded from XP until the beta I7 came out, I would not waste my money on Vista after all the CR*P came out with the high prices and problems they were having. As for Linux I have about 5-7 of their OS's too but only running Ubuntu combined with Mythbuntu for my HTPC.

 

Well honestly, you never know what will happen in the future. Dell is pushing Linux on some of their boxes, and a vast number of netbooks also come with Linux pre-bundled. That's a great step forward. I always have respected Linux, but have used Windows due to compatibility and simplicity reasons.

 

I'm sure all of us here can agree that Vista was more than just a complete joke. It was an embarassment. It was a disaster. $400 for Vista Premium is a rip-off in every sense of the word, when you consider a half-assed UAC and very few other security enhancements. Vista placed the responsibility of security on the user, and if the users always click "yes" or disables UAC, it defeats the entire purpose. I don't believe the visual features merit the price premium, and DX10, which has yet to be demonstrated in comparison to DX9, isn't worth it either. I can tweak a .txt for Crysis to enable "DX10 only" graphic effects in Windows XP. What a joke. The most bothersome concept about all of this together is that Microsoft worked for 6-7 freakin years to release Vista, and the end product was nothing like what was planned. That's just pitiful.

1. Vista was a stepping stone. Initial driver issues aside, if you think Vista's a joke, you'll be sorely disappointed by Windows 7.

2. UAC's annoying popups are a necessity to security. How would you design a security system? Telling the user that something is happening - something which may be a surprise to them - seems like a great idea to me. The other options (i.e. disabling user access to the system) makes for a solution of needing every household to have a designated Windows administrator for installing anything... very Linux like... how many regular families do you know that could handle the technical know-how? Disabling UAC is a fine solution for people who prefer to take their chances and live in their own little XP world.

Scooder:

2. UAC's annoying popups are a necessity to security. How would you design a security system?

They are not a necessity..  All you have to do is digitally sign every installation package and block everything else and you're done.. You don't need to prompt users when you know your software is secured properly..  Windows is a mess, having users able to go to random websites and download random junk is the worst idea ever..  Everything should be digitally signed by trusted software vendors.  If there's  a problem with the software, then you know EXACTLY who is responsible..  The Operating System should be checking to make sure that every software program that's installed does not have access to put files where they shouldn't \or let software leech off of, or become part of, the Operating System.   Microsoft has been far too lenient in the tolerance for what can be installed on a computer and as a result it has costed the industry billions of dollars..

There are a million-and-one things that Microsoft could learn from Linux.

I agree with you that MS lets apps take over too much control of the OS. I'd much rather have a clean system and less applications integrated into my browser/explorer/desktop.

However, making it so that every app has to be digitally signed by a TA doesn't sound like a viable solution to me. That would basically mean no free software. IMO it would just mean that large corporations who can afford to have all of their software signed would produce it, so you'd be stuck with a few vendors like MS, Adobe, IBM... with little alternatives. Sounds like a Mac . I just think Windows is a great OS because of the vast amount of software written for it... if only signed software could be run, I'd likely leave town.

(This site hasn't sped up a lick)

The vast amount of software for Linux is a couple clicks through your Package Manager.  and it is vast

 Case in point the Edubuntu package . For kicks I plugged it into a 500MHz pIII w/256MB. It was a little slow to boot but it ran fair/good. The tools available for teaching at home and in the class are ridiculous.

If you are talking gaming with 16GB of RAM and 3x sli 9800gtx then MS will create another DirectX that doesn't work on previous versions to blackmail gamers into buying a Beta OS 2-3 yr.s before it is ready.

BTW I isn't real smawt like most of you folks, but I figured my way around both gnome and kde desktops.

Oh and Hi

Hi Freezy, long time no see.

 

Scooder:

However, making it so that every app has to be digitally signed by a TA doesn't sound like a viable solution to me. That would basically mean no free software. IMO it would just mean that large corporations who can afford to have all of their software signed would produce it,

No, no..  That's another thing where Microsoft and gang has everybody brainwashed..  Digital signing doesn't cost ANYTHING.. Anybody can create their own PGP Encryption keys and sign anything they want, but the whole idea is that you evaluate a digital signature of a software package at time of installation and then verify that against a trusted database of digital signatures.  That way modified or altered software could be instantly detected and companies with malicious intent will have their software signatures rejected from the trusted database.

 

 

But if it's digitally signed from a Trusted Authority, then it's automatic verified, right?

I think you're right and it is something that's needed. But anything that would be too difficult for your grandma to do would bring MS to it's knees since the majority of users don't event know where the control panel is. Just my opinion.

And the way things are going, MS clearly wants to make things seem easier for the average joe while making it more convoluted for the advanced user. So don't keep your hopes up

I regularly use linux and windows 7.  I like both of them but they are now the same price since W7 is a beta.  If the price of W7 is anything like Vista I might not like it so much.  Support is pretty much the same (Google).  It is easier to custom configure linux distros for your individual preferences and hardware capabilities.