MS is in a hurry to get Win7 out...
they want to get vista behind them as fast as possible. They will support it
of course for 3 years as all OS, because they have to.

But as you will see, XP and Win7 will still be relevant for many years.
Vista will be mentioned only as a good example of what to avoid in the
future.

Computer savvy people like win7, but will it grasp the hearts of the
consumer?
Perhaps its just too much like vista. There was a rumor that they would slap
on a new GUI at the last moment..

Now that the RC is out, I don't see them doing that.

Many simple users just ask: they had a good product, XP.. why just they don't
improve upon that and forget everything about vista and its offspring
(windows7)?

My answer is that MS would never do that... even if it means losing their
market share to apple and linux.

Talking about apple... MAC OSX rocks!

-V.B.S

Inline..

"barrel" <barrel@Tdgmail.com> wrote in message
news:gts5ni$h8j$1@news.motzarella.org...[color=blue]
> MS is in a hurry to get Win7 out...[/color]

If you look at MS operating system release history, you will find that 2 - 3
years is the norm
[color=blue]
> they want to get vista behind them as fast as possible. They will support
> it of course for 3 years as all OS, because they have to.
>[/color]

That is as maybe, but it was not all the fault of MS..
[color=blue]
> But as you will see, XP and Win7 will still be relevant for many years.
> Vista will be mentioned only as a good example of what to avoid in the
> future.
>[/color]

Windows 2000 is still alive too, but numbers are dwindling fast..
[color=blue]
> Computer savvy people like win7, but will it grasp the hearts of the >
> consumer? Perhaps its just too much like vista. There was a rumor that
> they would slap on a new GUI at the last moment..
>[/color]

Windows 7 benefits in that anything which runs on Vista will run on Win 7.
Vista was left to make it on its own by virtually all 3rd party
manufacturers and software authors for a good six months That alone will
ensure a Windows 7 success..
[color=blue]
> Now that the RC is out, I don't see them doing that.
>
> Many simple users just ask: they had a good product, XP.. why just they
> don't > improve upon that and forget everything about vista and its
> offspring > (windows7)?
>[/color]

The reason for Vista taking so long was because the XP base was not good
enough to be carried forward, and MS had to start over. Windows 7 can be no
more based upon XP than Vista could.
[color=blue]
> My answer is that MS would never do that... even if it means losing their
> market share to apple and linux.
>
> Talking about apple... MAC OSX rocks!
>
> -V.B.S
>[/color]

To each their own

--

Mike Hall - MVP Windows Experience
[url]http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/[/url]

"Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:eBOM6hlzJHA.1420@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Inline..
>
> "barrel" <barrel@Tdgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:gts5ni$h8j$1@news.motzarella.org...[color=green]
>> MS is in a hurry to get Win7 out...[/color]
>
> If you look at MS operating system release history, you will find that 2 -
> 3 years is the norm
>[color=green]
>> they want to get vista behind them as fast as possible. They will support
>> it of course for 3 years as all OS, because they have to.
>>[/color]
>
> That is as maybe, but it was not all the fault of MS..
>[color=green]
>> But as you will see, XP and Win7 will still be relevant for many years.
>> Vista will be mentioned only as a good example of what to avoid in the
>> future.
>>[/color]
>
> Windows 2000 is still alive too, but numbers are dwindling fast..
>[color=green]
>> Computer savvy people like win7, but will it grasp the hearts of the >
>> consumer? Perhaps its just too much like vista. There was a rumor that
>> they would slap on a new GUI at the last moment..
>>[/color]
>
> Windows 7 benefits in that anything which runs on Vista will run on Win 7.
> Vista was left to make it on its own by virtually all 3rd party
> manufacturers and software authors for a good six months That alone will
> ensure a Windows 7 success..
>[color=green]
>> Now that the RC is out, I don't see them doing that.
>>
>> Many simple users just ask: they had a good product, XP.. why just they
>> don't > improve upon that and forget everything about vista and its
>> offspring > (windows7)?
>>[/color]
>
> The reason for Vista taking so long was because the XP base was not good
> enough to be carried forward, and MS had to start over. Windows 7 can be
> no more based upon XP than Vista could.
>[color=green]
>> My answer is that MS would never do that... even if it means losing their
>> market share to apple and linux.
>>
>> Talking about apple... MAC OSX rocks!
>>
>> -V.B.S
>>[/color]
>
> To each their own[/color]

It's all a question of how to make the most money, peoples interests are
secondary at best, IMHO.
<H>.
[color=blue]
>
> --
>
> Mike Hall - MVP Windows Experience
> [url]http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/[/url][/color]

On Wed, 6 May 2009 14:16:11 -0400, "webster72n" <webster72n******.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>It's all a question of how to make the most money, peoples interests are
>secondary at best, IMHO.
><H>.[/color]

In the long run, a company cannot maximize profits UNLESS people's
interests are satisfied.

You are implying that people's interests don't have to be attended to,
which is clearly not the case.

Steve McGarrett wrote:[color=blue]
> On Wed, 6 May 2009 14:16:11 -0400, "webster72n" <webster72n******.com>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> It's all a question of how to make the most money, peoples interests are
>> secondary at best, IMHO.
>> <H>.[/color]
>
> In the long run, a company cannot maximize profits UNLESS people's
> interests are satisfied.[/color]

Which is why Micro$lut is history: they hold their paying customers in
utter disdain and assume ALL of them are thieves.
[color=blue]
> You are implying that people's interests don't have to be attended to,
> which is clearly not the case.[/color]

Agreed, which is one of the reasons why I use Ubuntu.

Alias

"Alias" <iamalias@NUKEGmailTHIS.com> wrote in message
news:gtskt2$uvr$1@aioe.org...[color=blue]
> Steve McGarrett wrote:[color=green]
>> On Wed, 6 May 2009 14:16:11 -0400, "webster72n" <webster72n******.com>
>> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> It's all a question of how to make the most money, peoples interests are
>>> secondary at best, IMHO. <H>.[/color]
>>
>> In the long run, a company cannot maximize profits UNLESS people's
>> interests are satisfied.[/color]
>
> Which is why Micro$lut is history: they hold their paying customers in
> utter disdain and assume ALL of them are thieves.
>[color=green]
>> You are implying that people's interests don't have to be attended to,
>> which is clearly not the case.[/color]
>
> Agreed, which is one of the reasons why I use Ubuntu.
>
> Alias[/color]

You have it all wrong.

The main reason why you use Ubuntu is you can't afford Vista.
The second reason why you use Ubuntu is you can't figure out Vista.
The third reason why you use Ubuntu is because you don't do anything with
your computer other than troll so there is no need for you to use Vista even
if you could afford Vista.

measekite Da Monkey wrote:[color=blue]
> "Alias" <iamalias@NUKEGmailTHIS.com> wrote in message
> news:gtskt2$uvr$1@aioe.org...[color=green]
>> Steve McGarrett wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> On Wed, 6 May 2009 14:16:11 -0400, "webster72n" <webster72n******.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's all a question of how to make the most money, peoples interests are
>>>> secondary at best, IMHO. <H>.
>>> In the long run, a company cannot maximize profits UNLESS people's
>>> interests are satisfied.[/color]
>> Which is why Micro$lut is history: they hold their paying customers in
>> utter disdain and assume ALL of them are thieves.
>>[color=darkred]
>>> You are implying that people's interests don't have to be attended to,
>>> which is clearly not the case.[/color]
>> Agreed, which is one of the reasons why I use Ubuntu.
>>
>> Alias[/color]
>
> You have it all wrong.
>
> The main reason why you use Ubuntu is you can't afford Vista.[/color]

False.
[color=blue]
> The second reason why you use Ubuntu is you can't figure out Vista.[/color]

False.
[color=blue]
> The third reason why you use Ubuntu is because you don't do anything with
> your computer other than troll so there is no need for you to use Vista even
> if you could afford Vista.[/color]

False.

Three strikes. You're out.

Alias[color=blue]
>
>
>[/color]

"Alias" <iamalias@NUKEGmailTHIS.com> wrote in message
news:gtslur$od$1@aioe.org...[color=blue]
> measekite Da Monkey wrote:[color=green]
>> "Alias" <iamalias@NUKEGmailTHIS.com> wrote in message
>> news:gtskt2$uvr$1@aioe.org...[color=darkred]
>>> Steve McGarrett wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 6 May 2009 14:16:11 -0400, "webster72n" <webster72n******.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's all a question of how to make the most money, peoples interests
>>>>> are secondary at best, IMHO. <H>.
>>>> In the long run, a company cannot maximize profits UNLESS people's
>>>> interests are satisfied.
>>> Which is why Micro$lut is history: they hold their paying customers in
>>> utter disdain and assume ALL of them are thieves.
>>>
>>>> You are implying that people's interests don't have to be attended to,
>>>> which is clearly not the case.
>>> Agreed, which is one of the reasons why I use Ubuntu.
>>>
>>> Alias[/color]
>>
>> You have it all wrong.
>>
>> The main reason why you use Ubuntu is you can't afford Vista.[/color]
>
> False.
>[/color]

TRUE

[color=blue][color=green]
>> The second reason why you use Ubuntu is you can't figure out Vista.[/color]
>
> False.[/color]

TRUE
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> The third reason why you use Ubuntu is because you don't do anything with
>> your computer other than troll so there is no need for you to use Vista
>> even if you could afford Vista.[/color]
>
> False.[/color]

TRUE
[color=blue]
>
> Three strikes. You're out.
>[/color]
Three LIES and you're a LIAR.

LIAR

"Steve McGarrett" <smcgarret@bookem.com> wrote in message
news:egl305dincroe26vclt1rb2tb9qm2191j2@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Wed, 6 May 2009 14:16:11 -0400, "webster72n" <webster72n******.com>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>It's all a question of how to make the most money, peoples interests are
>>secondary at best, IMHO.
>><H>.[/color]
>
> In the long run, a company cannot maximize profits UNLESS people's
> interests are satisfied.
>
> You are implying that people's interests don't have to be attended to,
> which is clearly not the case.[/color]

That is not an implication but an indication with all the proof at hand.
Surely there have to be considerations, but they are clearly not primary,
that is my contention, or we wouldn't have these overwhelming problems.

On Wed, 6 May 2009 15:42:06 -0400, "webster72n" <webster72n******.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>
>"Steve McGarrett" <smcgarret@bookem.com> wrote in message
>news:egl305dincroe26vclt1rb2tb9qm2191j2@4ax.com...[color=green]
>> On Wed, 6 May 2009 14:16:11 -0400, "webster72n" <webster72n******.com>
>> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>It's all a question of how to make the most money, peoples interests are
>>>secondary at best, IMHO.
>>><H>.[/color]
>>
>> In the long run, a company cannot maximize profits UNLESS people's
>> interests are satisfied.
>>
>> You are implying that people's interests don't have to be attended to,
>> which is clearly not the case.[/color]
>
>That is not an implication but an indication with all the proof at hand.[/color]

No. You have chosen the info you call "proof" and have made your
implications based on that selection. Might make you feel good, but
it's bad practice.
[color=blue]
>Surely there have to be considerations, but they are clearly not primary,
>that is my contention, or we wouldn't have these overwhelming problems.[/color]

Your contention is wrong. You are clearly looking at matters from a
jaundiced viewpoint. I'll leave it at that.

I'm outta here.

>>[color=blue][color=green]
>> In the long run, a company cannot maximize profits UNLESS people's
>> interests are satisfied.[/color][/color]

This isn't true, by the way. Except in the trivial sense in that
you need to satisfy at least ONE interest. That interest is the
*stockholder's* interest in adequate returns. You can get those by selling
phlogiston futures to little old ladies, or by illegally manipulating
futures markets, or by selling parasitic financial instruments built on
optimistic algebra and lots of leverage. You still make money and you
still satisfy the one important interest.

It is very sad that Microsoft builds an Operating System Like XP or
Vista and Windows 7 and support it for only three years. They should well
call their selves crocks. People should not have to pay for their inflated
operating systems as they keep raising the prices when they release a new
system. Look Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 1 was $199.99 at Best Buy
in 2005 full version when I bought it and Windows Vista Home Premium Service
Pack 1 $239.99 on the present Best Buy Web Site. So you all tell me why they
should be allowed to tell people if you want a secure operating system you
have to keep buying their inflated software and why their prices keep going
up each time they release it. People should be able to by a computer and use
it for many years as long as they want. Very sad Microsoft is they way they
are and that is part of the reason they lost a lot of money. And by the way
the patent office rejected Microsoft's pay as you go patent computing patent
because very hard to patent something that has been around for years and for
other reasons.

"Steve McGarrett" <smcgarret@bookem.com> wrote in message
news:u3r305163llr46um72h7pir6oa7rs39lfd@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Wed, 6 May 2009 15:42:06 -0400, "webster72n" <webster72n******.com>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>>
>>"Steve McGarrett" <smcgarret@bookem.com> wrote in message
>>news:egl305dincroe26vclt1rb2tb9qm2191j2@4ax.com...[color=darkred]
>>> On Wed, 6 May 2009 14:16:11 -0400, "webster72n" <webster72n******.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>It's all a question of how to make the most money, peoples interests are
>>>>secondary at best, IMHO.
>>>><H>.
>>>
>>> In the long run, a company cannot maximize profits UNLESS people's
>>> interests are satisfied.
>>>
>>> You are implying that people's interests don't have to be attended to,
>>> which is clearly not the case.[/color]
>>
>>That is not an implication but an indication with all the proof at hand.[/color]
>
> No. You have chosen the info you call "proof" and have made your
> implications based on that selection. Might make you feel good, but
> it's bad practice.
>[color=green]
>>Surely there have to be considerations, but they are clearly not primary,
>>that is my contention, or we wouldn't have these overwhelming problems.[/color]
>
> Your contention is wrong. You are clearly looking at matters from a
> jaundiced viewpoint. I'll leave it at that.
>
> I'm outta here.[/color]

On Wed, 6 May 2009 20:36:31 +0000 (UTC), [email]wrat@panix.com[/email] (the wharf
rat) wrote:
[color=blue]
>or by selling parasitic financial instruments built on
>optimistic algebra and lots of leverage. You still make money and you
>still satisfy the one important interest.[/color]

Until it all comes crashing down, like when the banks crashed the
world's economy recently :-)