Question for Fanboys: Is Win 7 Finally It?

Question for M$ Fanboys:

Is Windows 7 finally the compelling reason to migrate from Windows 98?

Side question: what do I do for Microsoft Fax?

Win 98 User wrote:

Question for M$ Fanboys:

Is Windows 7 finally the compelling reason to migrate from
Windows 98?

You've got to understand this fundamental concept when it comes to
Windows and PC's:

The OS comes pre-installed with the PC, and when the PC is discarded -
so is the Windows license. The two are inseparable.

You have the quaint impression that OS's and PC's are separate, and that
people mix different OS's on their PC's as it suits them.

For most people, that is not how it works, and it's not really what
Microsoft intends or counts on. The vast majority of people will come
to own and use Win-7 because it will come pre-installed on their next
new PC, just as all previous versions of windows came pre-installed on
older generations of hardware.

And it's not necessarily the desire to "migrate" to a new version of
windows that's the reason why people buy new machines. The number one
reason is that their current PC has become bogged down by malware, and
they feel that their only practical recourse is a new machine.

Your question is non-sensical from another point of view. Which is,
that anyone running win-98 as their primary OS is most likely doing so
on hardware that will not run Win-7 very well in the first place. So
it's even more unlikely now that such people will "migrate" away from
Win-98 today vs a year ago if they're keeping the same hardware.

If I were to switch to another OS other than win-98, it would be to XP.

The shortcomings of Vista and Windows-7 are a step backwards compared to
XP. Primarily - DRM being build right into the kernel.

And one more thing. Why was Windows 7 given the numerical version
designation of Windows 6.1?

Up to now, Microsoft never cared about installations failing due to
'Winmajor' changing from 4 to 5 or 5 to 6. Suddenly it does. There is
more here than meets the eye. This is really Microsoft's way of saying
that Windows 7 is just Windows Vista - Second Edition.

Win 98 User wrote:

Question for M$ Fanboys:

Is Windows 7 finally the compelling reason to migrate from
Windows 98?

You've got to understand this fundamental concept when it comes to
Windows and PC's:

The OS comes pre-installed with the PC, and when the PC is discarded -
so is the Windows license. The two are inseparable.

You have the quaint impression that OS's and PC's are separate, and that
people mix different OS's on their PC's as it suits them.

For most people, that is not how it works, and it's not really what
Microsoft intends or counts on. The vast majority of people will come
to own and use Win-7 because it will come pre-installed on their next
new PC, just as all previous versions of windows came pre-installed on
older generations of hardware.

And it's not necessarily the desire to "migrate" to a new version of
windows that's the reason why people buy new machines. The number one
reason is that their current PC has become bogged down by malware, and
they feel that their only practical recourse is a new machine.

Your question is non-sensical from another point of view. Which is,
that anyone running win-98 as their primary OS is most likely doing so
on hardware that will not run Win-7 very well in the first place. So
it's even more unlikely now that such people will "migrate" away from
Win-98 today vs a year ago if they're keeping the same hardware.

If I were to switch to another OS other than win-98, it would be to XP.

The shortcomings of Vista and Windows-7 are a step backwards compared to
XP. Primarily - DRM being build right into the kernel.

And one more thing. Why was Windows 7 given the numerical version
designation of Windows 6.1?

Up to now, Microsoft never cared about installations failing due to
'Winmajor' changing from 4 to 5 or 5 to 6. Suddenly it does. There is
more here than meets the eye. This is really Microsoft's way of saying
that Windows 7 is just Windows Vista - Second Edition.

Your comments relate only to the OEM versions of Windows 7 and are not
applicable to full or upgrade versions, which can be purchased over the
counter or online for installation on any suitable PC.
--
Jeff Richards
----------------------------------------

"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
Win 98 User wrote:

snip

You've got to understand this fundamental concept when it comes to
Windows and PC's:

The OS comes pre-installed with the PC, and when the PC is discarded -
so is the Windows license. The two are inseparable.

You have the quaint impression that OS's and PC's are separate, and that
people mix different OS's on their PC's as it suits them.

For most people, that is not how it works, and it's not really what
Microsoft intends or counts on. The vast majority of people will come
to own and use Win-7 because it will come pre-installed on their next
new PC, just as all previous versions of windows came pre-installed on
older generations of hardware.

In message , 98 Guy writes:
Win 98 User wrote:

Question for M$ Fanboys:

Is Windows 7 finally the compelling reason to migrate from
Windows 98?

You've got to understand this fundamental concept when it comes to
Windows and PC's:

The OS comes pre-installed with the PC, and when the PC is discarded -
so is the Windows license. The two are inseparable.

That is, indeed, the way it is for most people. (The pricing structure
alone - since about the '9x era, if not earlier - makes it still so.)

You have the quaint impression that OS's and PC's are separate, and that
people mix different OS's on their PC's as it suits them.

For most people, that is not how it works, and it's not really what
Microsoft intends or counts on. The vast majority of people will come
to own and use Win-7 because it will come pre-installed on their next
new PC, just as all previous versions of windows came pre-installed on
older generations of hardware.

Sadly true.

And it's not necessarily the desire to "migrate" to a new version of
windows that's the reason why people buy new machines. The number one
reason is that their current PC has become bogged down by malware, and
they feel that their only practical recourse is a new machine.

Not even malware, just ware. They install so much they don't actually
need. Plus there _is_ a desire for "something new"; I think that aspect
could be achieved by a new "theme" (colours, button shapes, wallpaper,
and other eye-candy), but people feel they aren't paying enough if
that's what they do - there is a feel this something has to cost to be
good.

Your question is non-sensical from another point of view. Which is,
that anyone running win-98 as their primary OS is most likely doing so
on hardware that will not run Win-7 very well in the first place. So
it's even more unlikely now that such people will "migrate" away from
Win-98 today vs a year ago if they're keeping the same hardware.

Well, I'm not quite as sure about that particular point: it hasn't been
around long enough for anyone to say, but there have been claims that 7
is - or _can_ be - less hardware-hungry than Vista. Certainly, I've seen
it on netbooks that were previously not offered with Vista.

If I were to switch to another OS other than win-98, it would be to XP.

That's what I've done, buying a netbook in order to do so (not sure I'd
have done so if I hadn't had a long-service award that had to be spent
on something). I think XP is now where '98 was three or four years ago -
i. e. MS wanting to drop it, and _lots_ of knowledge out there about how
to make it work properly. (And still supported by most hardware and
software vendors, at least those whose products I'm likely to buy.) [I
still keep my '98 machines for certain purposes, for which they're
fine.]

The shortcomings of Vista and Windows-7 are a step backwards compared to
XP. Primarily - DRM being build right into the kernel.

Indeed. (Not that I buy much film/music anyway, and when I do I tend to
actually buy it anyway, I just object on principle.)

And one more thing. Why was Windows 7 given the numerical version
designation of Windows 6.1?

(Like XP is NT5 ... [I think it was called that up to quite close to its
launch].)

Up to now, Microsoft never cared about installations failing due to
'Winmajor' changing from 4 to 5 or 5 to 6. Suddenly it does. There is
more here than meets the eye. This is really Microsoft's way of saying
that Windows 7 is just Windows Vista - Second Edition.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

The man who is denied the opportunity of taking decisions of importance begins
to regard as important the decisions he is allowed to take. -C. Northcote
Parkinson, author and historian (1909-1993)

In message , 98 Guy writes:
Win 98 User wrote:

Question for M$ Fanboys:

Is Windows 7 finally the compelling reason to migrate from
Windows 98?

You've got to understand this fundamental concept when it comes to
Windows and PC's:

The OS comes pre-installed with the PC, and when the PC is discarded -
so is the Windows license. The two are inseparable.

That is, indeed, the way it is for most people. (The pricing structure
alone - since about the '9x era, if not earlier - makes it still so.)

You have the quaint impression that OS's and PC's are separate, and that
people mix different OS's on their PC's as it suits them.

For most people, that is not how it works, and it's not really what
Microsoft intends or counts on. The vast majority of people will come
to own and use Win-7 because it will come pre-installed on their next
new PC, just as all previous versions of windows came pre-installed on
older generations of hardware.

Sadly true.

And it's not necessarily the desire to "migrate" to a new version of
windows that's the reason why people buy new machines. The number one
reason is that their current PC has become bogged down by malware, and
they feel that their only practical recourse is a new machine.

Not even malware, just ware. They install so much they don't actually
need. Plus there _is_ a desire for "something new"; I think that aspect
could be achieved by a new "theme" (colours, button shapes, wallpaper,
and other eye-candy), but people feel they aren't paying enough if
that's what they do - there is a feel this something has to cost to be
good.

Your question is non-sensical from another point of view. Which is,
that anyone running win-98 as their primary OS is most likely doing so
on hardware that will not run Win-7 very well in the first place. So
it's even more unlikely now that such people will "migrate" away from
Win-98 today vs a year ago if they're keeping the same hardware.

Well, I'm not quite as sure about that particular point: it hasn't been
around long enough for anyone to say, but there have been claims that 7
is - or _can_ be - less hardware-hungry than Vista. Certainly, I've seen
it on netbooks that were previously not offered with Vista.

If I were to switch to another OS other than win-98, it would be to XP.

That's what I've done, buying a netbook in order to do so (not sure I'd
have done so if I hadn't had a long-service award that had to be spent
on something). I think XP is now where '98 was three or four years ago -
i. e. MS wanting to drop it, and _lots_ of knowledge out there about how
to make it work properly. (And still supported by most hardware and
software vendors, at least those whose products I'm likely to buy.) [I
still keep my '98 machines for certain purposes, for which they're
fine.]

The shortcomings of Vista and Windows-7 are a step backwards compared to
XP. Primarily - DRM being build right into the kernel.

Indeed. (Not that I buy much film/music anyway, and when I do I tend to
actually buy it anyway, I just object on principle.)

And one more thing. Why was Windows 7 given the numerical version
designation of Windows 6.1?

(Like XP is NT5 ... [I think it was called that up to quite close to its
launch].)

Up to now, Microsoft never cared about installations failing due to
'Winmajor' changing from 4 to 5 or 5 to 6. Suddenly it does. There is
more here than meets the eye. This is really Microsoft's way of saying
that Windows 7 is just Windows Vista - Second Edition.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

The man who is denied the opportunity of taking decisions of importance begins
to regard as important the decisions he is allowed to take. -C. Northcote
Parkinson, author and historian (1909-1993)

In message , Jeff Richards
writes:
Your comments relate only to the OEM versions of Windows 7 and are not
applicable to full or upgrade versions, which can be purchased over the
counter or online for installation on any suitable PC.

(I would have left his post here but.) No, he said "For most people",
and the scenario he describes is so: for the vast majority of people,
the OS does indeed come with the PC. The proportion of licences sold as
embedded swamps that sold as upgrades or OEM installs (and the pricing
policy is such that it will remain so), whether _we_ like it or not.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

The man who is denied the opportunity of taking decisions of importance begins
to regard as important the decisions he is allowed to take. -C. Northcote
Parkinson, author and historian (1909-1993)

In message , Jeff Richards
writes:
Your comments relate only to the OEM versions of Windows 7 and are not
applicable to full or upgrade versions, which can be purchased over the
counter or online for installation on any suitable PC.

(I would have left his post here but.) No, he said "For most people",
and the scenario he describes is so: for the vast majority of people,
the OS does indeed come with the PC. The proportion of licences sold as
embedded swamps that sold as upgrades or OEM installs (and the pricing
policy is such that it will remain so), whether _we_ like it or not.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

The man who is denied the opportunity of taking decisions of importance begins
to regard as important the decisions he is allowed to take. -C. Northcote
Parkinson, author and historian (1909-1993)

98 Guy wrote:

And it's not necessarily the desire to "migrate" to a new version of
windows that's the reason why people buy new machines. The number one
reason is that their current PC has become bogged down by malware, and
they feel that their only practical recourse is a new machine.

That certainly isn't my findings with any of the people that I have
worked with, fixing malware or bloat problems is easy, at worse a wipe
and reinstall and with a good backup set your back in business.

I would say that the number one reason why people change their computer
is that they can't run the newer software or some of the new gadgets
that they buy on their computer. Your printer goes pouff! and none of
the new printers out there have drivers for Windows 9x. That hot new
game that everybody is flocking to buy doesn't run on Windows 9x.
You've been told by your software vendor that your DOS accounting suite
will no longer be supported and that next year you will not have a new
payroll module unless you upgrade to the new versions which aren't
supported on Windows 98. And the list goes on.

Right behind the need to change for new gadgets or software I would say
that the next most common reason is that folks want faster newer
machines and trying to upgrade an old P3 box with 128MB of RAM makes no
sense at all, so folks buy new machines and they get the new Windows
with the new box. And even if they wanted to keep on using Windows 98
the facts are that the operating system just plainly isn't suited for
and it doesn't install on most of the new machines, trying to install a
uniprocessor OS like Windows 98 on a Quad Core isn't exactly the best
thing to do.

John

98 Guy wrote:

And it's not necessarily the desire to "migrate" to a new version of
windows that's the reason why people buy new machines. The number one
reason is that their current PC has become bogged down by malware, and
they feel that their only practical recourse is a new machine.

That certainly isn't my findings with any of the people that I have
worked with, fixing malware or bloat problems is easy, at worse a wipe
and reinstall and with a good backup set your back in business.

I would say that the number one reason why people change their computer
is that they can't run the newer software or some of the new gadgets
that they buy on their computer. Your printer goes pouff! and none of
the new printers out there have drivers for Windows 9x. That hot new
game that everybody is flocking to buy doesn't run on Windows 9x.
You've been told by your software vendor that your DOS accounting suite
will no longer be supported and that next year you will not have a new
payroll module unless you upgrade to the new versions which aren't
supported on Windows 98. And the list goes on.

Right behind the need to change for new gadgets or software I would say
that the next most common reason is that folks want faster newer
machines and trying to upgrade an old P3 box with 128MB of RAM makes no
sense at all, so folks buy new machines and they get the new Windows
with the new box. And even if they wanted to keep on using Windows 98
the facts are that the operating system just plainly isn't suited for
and it doesn't install on most of the new machines, trying to install a
uniprocessor OS like Windows 98 on a Quad Core isn't exactly the best
thing to do.

John