Last week we talked about what Linux (well, okay, X) could learn from Windows Vista and Windows 7, focusing on the graphics stack. A short article over at TechWorld lists seven things Windows 7 should learn from the Linux world. Some of them are spot-on, a few are nonsensical, and of course, and I'm sure you have a few to add too.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-11-19
They already have a subscription scheme. Actually they have tons of them.
Most of them are not for single home users (MSDN, OpenLicense, etc). However there is at least one that may appeal to the public. If you can get TechNet at discounted ($100/year) price, you'll practically get "everything" MS produces.
Member since:2009-05-15
for testing purposes only.
On the matter at hand, I don't really see a quick update cycle anytime soon, nobody I know want to update their system on their own, so add a 50-100$ installation fee for a technician + 50-150$ for the os itself and you have nobody upgrading. (online upgrade is nonsense to me, what if you wanna reinstall it? sorry nogo for most people) Microsoft stated after vista they wanted to maintain teh 2y release cycle they had before the whole vista fiasco.
Having some sort of "app store" would be great, but microsoft is a monopoly and they will get sued all the way and the number of applications developed for windows is just huge, nobody could manage that flow of apps ... but the idea is great, just not realistic.
makes program transferable without being tied to apps&settings/registry/windows doc, make them portable. Microsoft already have this technology avaialble to big enterprise, why not use it ? (like they should've done with shadow copy by integrating a nice interface) Each time I install windows I have to go through the 1h+ process of reinstalling everything (Except Steam, which reinstall itself (the srvice) by launching it, which is just great, no more reinstalling games !)
The topic is great, but the point presented (didn't have time to read all the comments, yet) aren't very realistic from the perspective of microsoft and their intended customers, unfortunatly.
Member since:2007-08-22
People won't pay for a subscription like that.
Microsoft has already found that out the hard way from their Volume License customers. When they made the switch, 66% of their VL customers upgraded to the new license (the other 33% dropped it); of those 66%, only 33% renewed their contract when it came time.
And that is only the commercial, large-volume world - speaks nothing of the SMBs, SOHOs, or home users; of which, most don't have the money to spare for such subscriptions.
Member since:
2008-04-04
Seem to me that your sentence (in bold) implies that even with faster release cycles MS would still change the way the OS works in style of the XP->Vista change; which I don't argee on.
Faster release cycles combined with online OS upgrades could enable MS to make small incremental improvements to its OS without drastic changes to the way things work.
Most linux distributions seems to manage that.
MS could also implement a subscription style payment scheme to enable people to choose to either buy the OS "as it is" (as in todays situation) or to buy the OS with a subscribtion to yearly updates and improvements beyond the standard securityupdates and servicepacks.
I don't disagree on the conservative nature of most users mind.
Change is often scary