I can’t say that I’ve had any issues with it and can’t remember it crashing at all. It doesn’t have all the annoying UAC pop-ups that Vista did, so that’s a plus. All in all it seems that MS has finally released a version of Windows that can replace XP reliably. Good luck to ‘em and all that choose to live in the Windows world.

Thank you for the comment. A wait and see approach when dealing with such a large and expensive implementation is a quite prudent strategy.

So far, I am impressed with Windows 7 but it has only been a short period of time.

My favorites in the Windows history: 98 SE, 2000 and XP Pro. 95 was an implementation nightmare as was Vista, and ME was flat out the worth product Microsoft has ever sold.

Chad

I think this time I will give it six months or so and see how it goes before leaping again. As far as previous versions, the best in my opinion were 98, 2003 server, and XP pro. I hope my friends at Linux continue their patriotic march to eventually destroy windows because of MSFTs choice of gain over customer pain. My decision to upgrade to Vista literally cost my agency a fortune and I am in no hurry to let Microsoft put me or my company in jeopardy again.

They knowingly and admittedly released Vista with serious issues and still face numerous law suits for damages done. (Search “Vista Lawsuits” on Google). You seem like a very intelligent individual. Let me know how you feel in the spring. – Joe Griffin

Thanks for taking the time to develope the article and publish it…good work!

I twitter on: iphone_designs

Thank you very much for helping all of us with your “Instruction Manual”. These types of posts help all of us so much and are very much appreciated.

Sounds to me like a series of successful marketing and software releases that get everybody ethered up just to be let down. I never bought into the whole Vista deal and am skeptical of this new release as well. Until it’s been around a bit and has it’s feet underneath it, I’ll wait. XP does what I need.

I do appreciate your point about XP’s age and how we used to do things, but I’m not sold on this release until the consensus spells jump.

I cant speak for Apple, the only product of theirs that I use is an iPod. I got it used on CL and I paid less than 100 bucks. The iPhone is cool, but my new myTouch does just fine to…and I can make calls on it.

Although Windows and Apple computers have been around for decades, Windows has enjoyed dominate market share. Actual numbers vary, but Apple appears to have around 10% of the U.S. market (one analyst claims a 21% market share) and less than 3% of the worldwide market. Windows market share is slipping, but it still holds nearly 90% of the market.
Apple sales are growing rapidly, with sales 6 times that of the overall growth in computer sales. Coincidentally, the largest growth in Apple computer sales has come since the switch to an Intel platform allowing Windows to run on an Apple.
If Windows is so flawed and the Apple OS so superior, why are 9 out of 10 computers running Windows?”

This comment is quite flawed and not very well thought out.. Apple is in the business of selling hardware. Microsoft is in the business of selling software (Windows). Although market share can be important I find it hard to understand why people can’t get the fact that Apple has little to no interest in dominating the market and care more about PROFIT MARGINS of which they have the best in the business.

Sure I guess Apple would love to all of a sudden have 90% markets share, but in reality they’re not competing in the same space necessarily as WIndows. Windows is purposely licensed to any an all PC vendors and is meant to be a low cost OS solution for any type of PC (Netbooks and so on). Apple on the other hand competes in the higher end computer market and goes after large profit margins which they continually find ways to increase.

The easiest way to look at it is this quote I saw on a forum recently… “On the larger point of market share, we’ve been through it before: it’s better to sell 10 units for a profit of $9 each, than 89 units for a profit of $1 each. Moreover, on top of the profitability, in the $1000+ category, Apple’s share is massive (in the 80%+ range?). Additionally, the company ain’t doing too badly in the PMP segment (75% share) or in the smartphone segment where it’s profits are higher than those of the next three largest cellphone producers combined.”

The point is of course Microsoft has a larger market share. They reach all levels of the market all the way down to the low cost netbooks and their profits aren’t hardware based and are relatively small, but in the space that Apple chooses to compete they’re killing the competition.

I’m sure if Apple tomorrow decided to license OS X out to all PC vendors their market share would jump drastically within months, but that’s not their core business. Most would agree OS X is superior or at least more user friendly and prettier than Windows, but Apple wants to control the user experience by tying it to their hardware and by giving it away to anyone and everyone like Windows you dilute the market and your own image somewhat in the eyes of consumers.

Microsoft does some great things and they simply chose a different business model than Apple. Both work for each individual company and so when making a computer purchase one has to ask what they want in a computer and what’s important to them and what they’re willing to give up in return.

If you’re willing to untie the hardware component with the software one and price is most important to you then a Windows based PC is probably the right choice, but in return you’re probably giving up a few things like support and knowing that you’re now dealing with numerous different vendors so if something goes wrong you might find yourself struggling to get an answer.

On the other hand if you are willing to pay a little more you get the tie in with the premium hardware/software so getting support is as easy as going to your local malls Apple Store and one dedicated site to support. You also have a more tied in software experience as most programs work together seamlessly since they’re from one company. You also have what most would consider a friendlier/prettier user interface that works well with advanced users or newbies. You also have less worries when it comes to security for various reasons, but one being there’s just less attacks on the OS since there’s less overall users.

Again both systems are great for what they are and both go after completely different markets. Market share is one form of measurement, but in this case it’s quite flawed. In some ways comparing it simply based on market share is like comparing a luxury car company with Ford, Chevy or Toyota. Of course the latter 3 will have a huge market share as they’re cheaper, but the question comes down to what segment of the market do you fall and what are you willing to give up to get it at that price. As one commenter above pointed out a better comparison would be a high end PC running Windows vs. say a MacBook Pro, but even in that case the market has already decided the winner as Apple dominates that market.