View Full Version : Should Windows 7 be free to Vista owners?
From Jason Perlow of ZDnet: "Windows 7 is Windows Vista Service Release 2. And since Windows 7 is essentially a performance and usability fix for a defective product, a Windows 7 upgrade should be free to anyone who was conned into buying Vista."
His opinion of Vista, of course, but not a bad point. If I had plunked down $200 for Vista and upgraded my hardware accordingly, I might feel the same. I'm still using XP SP3, so I expect to pay for Windows 7.
Jason's full blog on the subject may be found here: http://blogs.zdnet.com/perlow/?p=9367&tag=nl.e539
/steve
LarryFlowers
01-07-09, 11:43 AM
His opinion and he is entitled to it... but Vista isn't defective and there are changes in Windows 7 that aren't in Vista. I would ask him what is defective? Exactly what is defective. Define it. Don't whine about manufacturers drivers that are non existent and don't whine about features that you don't particularly like... what is defective?
That being said I would like to see some great upgrade deals out there for consumers and I hope Microsoft does their usual of free upgrades for new PC buyers if bought within 90 days of Windows 7 RTM.
From Jason Perlow of ZDnet: "Windows 7 is Windows Vista Service Release 2. And since Windows 7 is essentially a performance and usability fix for a defective product, a Windows 7 upgrade should be free to anyone who was conned into buying Vista."
His opinion of Vista, of course, but not a bad point. If I had plunked down $200 for Vista and upgraded my hardware accordingly, I might feel the same. I'm still using XP SP3, so I expect to pay for Windows 7.
Jason's full blog on the subject may be found here: http://blogs.zdnet.com/perlow/?p=9367&tag=nl.e539
/steve
Stuart Sweet
01-07-09, 11:50 AM
I disagree with Mr. Perlow. Vista isn't perfect but it's a long way from defective. It is, however, in many ways the answer to a question no one asked.
Should the upgrade be free? Probably not, but if Microsoft did do so, it might increase satisfaction and allow XP and Vista to be "EOL'd" earlier, and so might actually save money.
I'm not taking Perlow's side, but he may be claiming Vista is "defective" based on the recent comparison test reported by his colleague, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. Mr. K-H found after running 23 "real-world" tests, that Windows 7 was faster than Vista in all but one "file-move" test, running on a conservative 2.2 GHZ Dual Core Pentium with 1 GB of RAM. And he was running the 7000 beta, which probably still has debugging code in it.
Article here: http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236
/steve
LarryFlowers
01-07-09, 12:17 PM
I expect Windows 7 to be faster than Vista, just as I expected Vista to be faster than XP. There were many tests made supporting both Vista being faster and slower than XP. I won't argue with the tests, but my experience has generally been that Vista performs better than XP with one very specific caveat.. file copy in Vista was tragically slow, though improved dramatically with the release of SP1.
Larry
I'm not taking Perlow's side, but he may be claiming Vista is "defective" based on the recent comparison test reported by his colleague, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. Mr. K-H found after running 23 "real-world" tests, that Windows 7 was faster than Vista in all but one "file-move" test, running on a conservative 2.2 GHZ Dual Core Pentium with 1 GB of RAM. And he was running the 7000 beta, which probably still has debugging code in it.
Article here: http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236
/steve
intelisevil
01-07-09, 12:19 PM
My vote goes to a free 'upgrade' to Windows XP . . . :rolleyes:
I expect Windows 7 to be faster than Vista, just as I expected Vista to be faster than XP. There were many tests made supporting both Vista being faster and slower than XP. I won't argue with the tests, but my experience has generally been that Vista performs better than XP with one very specific caveat.. file copy in Vista was tragically slow, though improved dramatically with the release of SP1.Actually, if you look at the Intel section of Mr. K-H's test, you'll see that XP and Vista had almost identical total scores, with Vista ahead in some real-world tests and XP in others. Both came in second to 7, however, in all but 2 file move tests. XP was #1 in one, and Vista in the other.
That said, Windows 7 is still in beta, probably with some debuggers running that could be impacting performance.
/steve
Stuart Sweet
01-07-09, 12:40 PM
Sadly, after 25 years of PC operating systems, I expect a new one to be slower than its predecessor.
Greg Alsobrook
01-07-09, 12:48 PM
Sadly, after 25 years of PC operating systems, I expect a new one to be slower than its predecessor.
Get a mac! :p
Come on, you all knew I was going to say it... :D
vurbano
01-07-09, 12:55 PM
Vista castrated a perfectly good HP 750PSC printer. It disabled scanning. It is defective IMO. Not to support printer functions that were supported under XP is ridiculous.
Stuart Sweet
01-07-09, 01:31 PM
Get a mac! :p
Come on, you all knew I was going to say it... :D
Sadly, after 26 years of Macintosh operating systems and their abandon-the-past philosophy, poor business integration and emphasis on style over performance, I know what to expect there too.
Stuart Sweet
01-07-09, 01:32 PM
Vista castrated a perfectly good HP 750PSC printer. It disabled scanning. It is defective IMO. Not to support printer functions that were supported under XP is ridiculous.
There I would blame HP for implementing its own drivers instead of working within the Windows driver model. I've seen this with their products for years and years. If HP uses Windows' imaging models and APIs instead of trying to bypass them, they wouldn't have such trouble keeping up with OS changes.
LarryFlowers
01-07-09, 01:53 PM
Don't blame Vista for HP's gross failure to prepare drivers. HP has been eating crow on this one for a while. I had a HP easel scanner that they came out and said they weren't going to do a Vista driver for... Customer reaction was exuberant to this statement and they "changed their minds" but HP failed miserably in updating their drivers.
Vista castrated a perfectly good HP 750PSC printer. It disabled scanning. It is defective IMO. Not to support printer functions that were supported under XP is ridiculous.
LarryFlowers
01-07-09, 01:54 PM
Yes and I was waiting for it... we will continue to ignore you!!:lol::lol::lol:
Get a mac! :p
Come on, you all knew I was going to say it... :D
Mark Holtz
01-07-09, 02:18 PM
Vista castrated a perfectly good HP 750PSC printer. It disabled scanning. It is defective IMO. Not to support printer functions that were supported under XP is ridiculous.That's a HP Driver issue, not a issue with Vista.
Having said that.... when I rebuilt my system last year, I picked up a license for both XP Professional (32-bit) and Vista Ultimate 64-bit. Yes, I made Bill rich on that order. Well, we haven't seen too much Ultimate exclusives. So, why not a free upgrade to 7 for us Ultimate users?
rudeney
01-07-09, 04:26 PM
Hmm, I expect to get Windows 7 free...just like I did with Vista. :) I'm a Microsoft Partner and other than my annual dues, I don't pay anything for the software. In addition, I try to attend all of their launch and Partner events because they always hand out free software there. I think I have two unopened Vista Ultimate discs at home just from events this last year.
dennisj00
01-07-09, 05:25 PM
Yes, Ultimate has been more trouble than it's worth. . . lots of things with no 64 bit drivers.
BattleZone
01-07-09, 08:23 PM
Yes, Ultimate has been more trouble than it's worth. . . lots of things with no 64 bit drivers.
Again, drivers aren't a Vista problem; they're a 3rd Party Manufacturer problem. Microsoft is NOT responsible for writing drivers for everyone's hardware. And Microsoft even offers to test and certify 3rd Party drivers.
If you had 64-bit XP, then you know that manufacturer's lack of 64-bit support is nothing new.
Finally, to address the original quote posted by the OP, there is going to be a Vista SP2 which will be adding some of the Win7 functionality to Vista, much like XP SP2/IE7 added some Vista functionality to XP.
The real problem is that since XP was out without a new, major version for 5 years, which is incredibly long by Windows standards, it allowed 3rd Party manufacturers to cut their driver development staff to almost nothing. Then, when Vista was released and everything needed new drivers, they didn't have the staff or the budget to write them, so they looked at their product lines, drew a line in the sand, and abandoned everything on the other side of the line.
It wouldn't have mattered WHAT Vista was; 3rd Party manufacturers simply decided that they'd rather force you to buy new stuff, and develop drivers for that, then to write new drivers for stuff they sold you 3+ years ago. If you want to blame someone, that's where to look.
deltafowler
01-07-09, 09:49 PM
If 7 is the same as Vista SP2, why doesn't he simply install SP2 when it's out?
That will get his whiny backside where it wants to be, right? :lol:
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.