3 ms·

I think the article is a little short sighted. While He definitely presents a possible scenario, I don't think it will be that simple. I've been running Window

by gxs 17y ago

I think the article is a little short sighted. While He definitely presents a possible scenario, I don't think it will be that simple. I've been running Windows 7 64-bit on my home machine for quite some time (legally, first RC, then RTM) and it really is a rather nice OS. It's very polished among other improvements I wont go into now. I think what the article underestimates is peoples willingness to try what they consider good. Think, twitter. Another blogging site, really? The Sopranos. Yet another mafia show? People will use what they or their friends consider good. I think Windows 7 will be fine, if for no other reason that as mentioned above, those XP machines will need to be replaced eventually.

tptacek 17y ago
I think the fact that you are not representative of most Windows users is Gruber's whole thesis, and you haven't really addressed it with this comment. I'm doing tech support for people on my block running machines from 2002-2003. They don't need anything that Win7 offers; they use their computers to get on the web and edit Word documents and that's it.
- dschobel 17y ago
  By that reasoning they haven't needed any of the new technology to come out since Win98. I don't see why that's a mark against Win7.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    Who said it was? Gruber's post isn't about whether Win7 is any good.
    - ams6110 17y ago
      Right... the reason XP has hung on so strongly is that it was finally a Microsoft OS that did what most people wanted without crashing or locking up all the time. When you have a stable OS that meets your needs, why change (especially if you are a business and you need to justify expenses with a bit more of a rationale than "ooh, that's pretty, I want it"
  - gvb 17y ago
    Not true. Since most hardware and software manufacturers dropped their support for Win98, users have been forced to move to WinXP (that, and the fact that their old computers got so mucked up with viruses/spyware that it was cheaper(!) to buy a new computer than clean off the virus/spyware mess). In other words, s/Win98/WinXP/ and you will be correct, but that was tptacek's point exactly.
    - gxs 17y ago
      I appreciate your stance, but you completely missed my point. The point was that users aren't exactly rational. Sure, they won't need a new OS, but Windows 7 is good, and on that merit alone people, especially with old XP machines, will switch. While I don't like to argue with analgies, it is fitting here. The example I made was the Sopranos. When the creator set out to write the show, he was told it would fail, as people didn't need another mafia show. After all, the Godfather came out in the 70s and there have been multiple similarly themed shows/movies since. In summary, the only thing I was trying to point out, is that when people like something, they will get it. Regardless of whether they need it or not. For yet another easy example, people don't need a new ipod every 6 months, yet they continue to sell.

by gxs 17y ago

tptacek 17y ago

I think the fact that you are not representative of most Windows users is Gruber's whole thesis, and you haven't really addressed it with this comment. I'm doing tech support for people on my block running machines from 2002-2003. They don't need anything that Win7 offers; they use their computers to get on the web and edit Word documents and that's it.

dschobel 17y ago
By that reasoning they haven't needed any of the new technology to come out since Win98. I don't see why that's a mark against Win7.
- tptacek 17y ago
  Who said it was? Gruber's post isn't about whether Win7 is any good.
  - ams6110 17y ago
    Right... the reason XP has hung on so strongly is that it was finally a Microsoft OS that did what most people wanted without crashing or locking up all the time. When you have a stable OS that meets your needs, why change (especially if you are a business and you need to justify expenses with a bit more of a rationale than "ooh, that's pretty, I want it"
- gvb 17y ago
  Not true. Since most hardware and software manufacturers dropped their support for Win98, users have been forced to move to WinXP (that, and the fact that their old computers got so mucked up with viruses/spyware that it was cheaper(!) to buy a new computer than clean off the virus/spyware mess). In other words, s/Win98/WinXP/ and you will be correct, but that was tptacek's point exactly.
  - gxs 17y ago
    I appreciate your stance, but you completely missed my point. The point was that users aren't exactly rational. Sure, they won't need a new OS, but Windows 7 is good, and on that merit alone people, especially with old XP machines, will switch. While I don't like to argue with analgies, it is fitting here. The example I made was the Sopranos. When the creator set out to write the show, he was told it would fail, as people didn't need another mafia show. After all, the Godfather came out in the 70s and there have been multiple similarly themed shows/movies since. In summary, the only thing I was trying to point out, is that when people like something, they will get it. Regardless of whether they need it or not. For yet another easy example, people don't need a new ipod every 6 months, yet they continue to sell.