Username or EmailPassword
Just as IE wasn't upgraded for years because Microsoft saw no need or competition, we wouldn't see its frantic efforts to get 7 to market in order to (1) kill off XP, which drains revenue from Vista, and (2) to desperately get as far away from the whole Vista disaster as soon as possible.
But since Linux already stomps Win7 on both performance and security (on any machine you choose), there won't be a single Linux user switching to Win7, I guarantee that.
Well .. it all depends on your definition of security.
Not regarding updates there are more infected Vista desktops with virii and malware than there are Mac or Linux desktops ( even in % ).
That is real world security. IMNSHO that is only one that counts. Edited 2009-01-22 10:49 UTC
Google before you post Thom :p
If you read that article, it is clear that the worm changes daily, so updates are impossible currently.
At the bottom there is a link to a Microsoft update, but, like it says it will only mitigate it, not eradicate it. Edited 2009-01-22 14:14 UTC
Thom, HAH, you are funny man. Does anyone else thinks he is funny?
Is "very very secure"? can you try to not sound so n00bish?
Yeah, it is more secure than XP, but that doesn't make it "very very secure".
What people don't get here is the main point, Mark Shuttleworth doesn't feel the need to bash Windows 7 for him to gain any benefit, Ubuntu is doing well, with less than half the advertisement, Microsoft invest in every year. Linux is going strong in the servers, and will be expected that it continues to do so, as many IT people are dusting off old machines and turning them into Linux servers, given the economic recession we are in. I myself think Windows 7 is looking good, I will keep using Linux though.
Anyways, thanks for the laughs.
A whole lot of bullshit there. I've been running Vista for a long time now. Of course it's not perfect but nevertheless the best operating system we have available at the moment. Why else would I use it daily?
Unfortunately for you I have also been using Linux for about ten years. I keep using it for a lot of reasons but desktop performance is certainly not one of them. "Stomps Win7" is quite a false claim. I'm no security expert but I'm sure that neither Win7 or Linux stomps on the other in that area.
But since Linux already stomps Win7 on both performance and security
I use Linux on my desktop full time, after years with Windows. I switched for security reasons. I don't know if Windows 7 is measurably less secure than my Linux distro now, but for me Linux still has an aura of security and peace of mind that Windows does not provide.
As for performance, well, let's just say that I did not switch to Linux for performance reasons. Boot time is about twice as long with Linux. Login to the desktop takes longer on Linux. The Nautilus file manager, which is comfortable for me to use, is inexcusably slow on directories containing more than about 25 files. I could go on. I'm fairly content with my Linux distro at the moment, but if you're looking for a "snappy" but familiar desktop, keep on looking. Edited 2009-01-22 13:28 UTC
Not to mention your *desktop* Linux apps suck royal ass.
Linux is for servers.
My Linux install boots in less than half a minute on my desktop... not too bad, I think.
...and Vista cheats with the boot process.
I only consider it fully booted up after it finishes it's thrashing of the hard drive after the desktop appears.... it's unusable before that. Edited 2009-01-22 16:34 UTC
Really? 32bit WinXP runs like lightning on my AMD64+2Gb+GeForce 6600GT while Ubuntu runs like a dog. huge difference in performance. Your claim is ridiculous.
And in my case 32bit WinXP runs like a dog on my AMD64X2+2Gb+GeForce 5700GT while Ubuntu runs like lightning with a huge difference in performance.
He may be rediculous, but evidently from my experiences you are wrong. Flat out. Just like I am to someone else with different experiences.
Weeeeee! Isn't software fun???!! Edited 2009-01-22 20:58 UTC
"But since Linux already stomps Win7 on both performance and security (on any machine you choose), there won't be a single Linux user switching to Win7, I guarantee that."
When it comes to performance and security a lot of users are happy if it is "good enough", and often don't understand either.
They do however care *alot* about ease of use, and maybe even more importantly: familiarity. Linux is scary to a lot of people. I remember we had Linux at school. Everybody hated it, the only thing they hated more was OpenOffice.
But of course, people who have what they need on Linux *and* are familiar with it probably won't switch.