Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Ed,

While I agree the step from Vista to 7 doesn't "seem" like much, the reality is that there is much more than could be added using 3rd party tools. You can't tell me there's a tool that will warn logged in users that you are trying to remote desktop and let them close their programs waits for them instead of kicking them off (a handy feature for those of us who let people use our computers). Try to add HomeGroups using 3rd party software, it's a great feature that simply just works. For a complete list, I'd suggest reading Paul Thurrot's site: http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/win7_skus_compare.asp

Your suggestion of third party add-ons and disabling background processes to achieve lower memory is an oxymoron. You have to be pretty damn clever to be able to add software and lower memory usage just by disabling services. Either you install add-ons and add more memory usage or you disable slow services and leave it as is. Wouldn't you rather have it just built in?

Finally, remember that a lot of people still use Windows XP because we disliked Vista. Companies skipped Vista and are waiting for 7. The jump from XP to Windows 7 is huge and this price ($99) is more than reasonable (details: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10272259-56.html).

I totally agree, however, that a jump from Vista to 7 shouldn't cost so much, even as an upgrade and especially not the MSRP. I was able to get by hardly ever having to buy Windows... we had MSDN, got a lot of licenses from that, and haven't really had to install a new OS in a long time.

At the same time, if you think about how much you use your OS compared to its initial cost, it's not that much. Let's say you use your computer pretty infrequently, maybe 2 hours a day. If you paid $2/hr for the OS, it would only take you less than half a year to pay for it. Most of use use our computer a lot more than that. I used it for at least 10 hours this week. Yah, it's a lot up front... but not that much in the long run. You probably use up $300 going out to eat within 6 months (or less).

I installed 7 RC1 on all my computers (2 PCs and 1 tablet) now and the jump in performance is pretty amazing, all the devices are now much faster than they used to be.

As to reducing overhead while disabling windows features (and adding 3rd party ones) it isn't as hard as it would seem. Some features, such as superfetch, are incredible resource hogs (memory, processor time, energy from the thrashing Hard drive, the whole big) and have only marginal use if you keep track of where your stuff is without constantly having to search. Also many of the 3rd party applications are rather lightweight (for example the OSX dock addons take only a few KBs of RAM to run) and often have features superior to even the newer windows 7 options.
Yes Windows 7 is lighter, but it is still rather bloated compared to XP (especially the non MS approved Tiny XP which gets the footprint down to under 100MBs of RAM and 200 MBs of disk space) or OSX and Linux. Its like looking at a guy who ballooned to 300 pounds then loses 50 pounds and talking about him as if he's skinny. My 2nd computer, a macbook air, runs OSX fast and flawlessly, even does pretty well with XP in a virtual Machine, but forget about running Windows 7 on one of the 2 core 2 processors in a virtual machine at anywhere near the speed of XP. It is a little better, but its still only skinny for a fat man.
As to the 99 dollars that is a limited time upgrade and only for small numbers of licenses (compared to how many a large company needs to switch). It is also over 3x more then what Apple is charging for a just as significant update to OSX and of course infinitely more then Linux costs (though I don't think Linux is a completely viable replacement like OSX is just yet). There is also the fine print that is missing from the OSX license agreement like "this upgrade is only good for one computer, if you replace any major component have fun buying it again" and the like. For just a little more then the one license OSX box I can install OSX on 5 computers, which encompasses every computer me, my wife and my parents own, all legally. That costs less then 10 dollars a person vs 500 dollars across 5 people for Windows 7. No easy volume licenses is highway robbery.

Finally the main problem with Windows is that it makes an otherwise reasonable proposition (making a new computer) become prohibitively expensive. You can, today, build a very capable computer for a few hundred dollars. Even if you use an i7 processor, 280GT Nvidia card and other high end components a full copy of Windows 7 will be your most expensive component. Should nearly half of your computer budget really just be some software that runs on it? Yes you can amatorize it and say "its only a dollar a day" but given the competition is less then 10 cents a day (or in linux's case free) the argument really breaks down. Would even the most hardcore Windows fan really claim that windows is literally 10x more capable then OSX?

In your situation you're looking at 300 dollars if you take the best buy deal, almost 1000 dollars if you get the full featured version (Ultimate) at retail prices (700 if you use upgrade editions). On the other hand I'll upgrade my two mac laptops and one at home imac for 30-50 bucks. The discrepancy only accelerates when you talk about multiple computers and the added value just isn't there. Even the often derided apple recognizes that this recession is not the time to charge huge prices, and reduced their new OS from 129 to just 29, why doesn't Microsoft (who is running right this moment the apple is greedy and charges too much commercials) get the irony in that message as they ask for over 300 dollars for the full version of their next OS?