7 has quite some significant improvements over vista... and yes, i was skeptical at first, but after working with 98/2000/XP for over 7 years and with Vista for 2 years, I personally felt 7 was a breeze. I found the same level of comfort with respect to compatibility in 7 that i found way back when using 98/XP.

Coming to karmic, gosh, it has troubles even connecting to network in VMWare... I am not sure if they set it right now or not, but well, not going to install karmic as a full fledged OS anytime soon... not atleast the next release comes in

I found that it communicated with my XP machines much more reliably and quickly than XP or Vista ever did. So I would say that your configuration or hardware is to blame Dr. Dweeb.

Win7 is in fact better than VISTA in almost every technical respect. It is still not my preference, but circumstances dictate its use. I do not really like the new interface much either.

I have given up trying to get my home network to work however. I cannot seem to get any machine to talk to my Win7 server. I can put 2 random OSX machines in the same room and be communicating in moments; and it wasn't that bad with XP. Win7 network setup wizard is a disaster zone on wheels - truly truly horrid.

The lack of direct upgrade path from XP to Win7, and the incompatibility of XP and Win7 networking out of the box sends quite a clear message.

Dweeb

I installed Windows 7, but it is not recognizing my ati radeon 4350. why?

Those increases aren't unlikely. Most likely the surge is from Vista users running to get it off their machine with something that has been exaggerated to be significantly better. The numbers are true but they are a lie. They are just people trying to relieve the pain of Vista by getting something alleged to be newer and better. Vista was a huge failure. The numbers here will normalize. I doubt that can be sustained in any way, particularly since business isn't going to adopt it for another year or more.

47.5 % of all statistics are made up on the spot....

Wait and see... :)

Of course, there is no such thing as then 100% It is a contradiction to the definition of the percentage.
If you don't remember your school just google around.
We generally understand what people mean when they say 200% but this is not the right way of saying this.

And your next comment, of course, it represents the sales numbers. It always did in MS statistics. It means how many copies MS sold and NOT how many copies reached the end users. MS sales = copies sitting in OEM warehouse + copies actually utilised by the end users.

To Frank Black"
"My XP laptop with a new hard drive boots faster and runs faster than my Vista laptop did with a slower CPU (1.6Ghz Pentium M versus 2.1GHz Celeron) and a quarter of the memory in my Vista Laptop (512mb versus 2GB)."

Please do not post on here anymore. Your comment shows your level of utter ignorance. You sir are an idiot.

Drew, what I got out of that was that there's now a huge upfront cost to change-over vise actually having a realistic annual budget to slide in new systems.

I don't think non-upgrade years have the budgets just sit there or get spent wildly to justify it for the coming year. I think it's very hard to justify something new and get it past the bean counters.

We're setting on legacy control systems and it too is wildly expensive vise listening to strong suggestions to start moving over section by section. We'd be 75% done by now, still running on a budget, and not looking at a Capital Cost project to get approved.

"...i know folk that are still using NT4 and they are in a serious position now because the cost of upgrade is staggering, if they had managed their budgets over all those years then it would have been significantly less."

Darren,
I'm curious what you mean by this comment. How does not buying over the years make the upgrade staggering? If they had "managed their budget" over the years wouldn't that imply just spending the same money over a longer period of time than all at once? Are you saying they spent the budget during the non-upgrade years on other business needs and now have little money left for the upgrade?

Not sure I understand since, as an example, businesses can turn to Web Services to get interoperability between legacy hardware/software and newer systems because it is too costly to overhaul the entire environment.

Just curious what you meant.

Actually, I know several people that have asked me how to get Win7 at a student price because they want it for their personal machines. These are complete non techie people I know. Funny thing is they are running it way before I will.

- John

Windows XP does everything i need it too, blar blar

Windows Vista/7 banned in my office blar blar

your IT people are short sighted, there will come a time say when you "need" to get a new scanner, printer, or any other hardware device or piece of software that will simply not work with windows XP, how many 98 drivers are released with products nowadays? yet hell, 98 will do almost anything XP will do!

Large companys will upgrade because they have too, not because they like it or not. your IT tech problem is this,
if they are not careful in keeping the rest of their hardware uptodate a bit at a time, when it comes to a crunch point and they will have to upgrade it which may cost significantly more in single financial year then expected, rather then spreading it out over 6-10 years of an OSs life cycle.

your IT guys need to think outside of the box for a bit, i know folk that are still using NT4 and they are in a serious position now because the cost of upgrade is staggering, if they had managed their budgets over all those years then it would have been significantly less.

that ad is ghey.

All I can say is, thank god for ad blockers. I'm happily ignorant of those ads.

Thats good but can we stop having these articles that are a paragraph long surrounded by these naked man adverts for muscle building junk. The site just looks like a giant disgusting advert anymore. It's getting hard to look productive viewing this at work..

They're always over inflating numbers, like for instance, including OEM licenses or free upgraded licenses. I hope they haven't done it in this case. But I suspect they are because after the first few months they were saying they sold 40,000,000 copies of Vista. So is that a 237% increase from those phony Vista numbers or the real sales figures in 2007?

Sorry Alan, check your version numbers.

People who are paying for Windows Vista service pack "Windows 7" are doing nothing more than proving the Mojave experiment works. If it had been called Vista Second Edition nobody would have bought it.

Of course it'll outsell Vista, people want to believe the hype, they want to think they're getting a completely new OS.

Yes, Windows 7 is better than Vista but don't confuse a Corolla with a paint job for a Camry.

I think it's an absolute disgrace that Microsoft have been allowed to rip people off with mis-information.

Wrong,there are also things like 654% and
212% and any number of %.
However, I wonder if these numbers represent real byers or just the number of Windows 7 delivered or ordered bye retail.

..thing as 234%

I'm sure the dozen poor folks who "bought" Vista lately are pissed... ;-)

Wow, given the article's title I expected many more ..in Japan's than that.

Frank Black rants against vista even mentioning that his laptop died as if Vista is the cause of his hardware failure. whatever you have to say about Vista (some of it justified) says nothing about Windows 7. it is like saying don't buy a Camry because I am having problem with my Corrolla.

under you have tried Windows 7, you rant is just that... a rant

Saying that Win7 outsold Vista 235% isn't saying much, when a large majority of folks didn't upgrade to Vista or buy new computers to get Vista. I work at a school of medicine where we are still using XP. Vista upgrades were banned and Windows 7 upgrades have been banned by the IT Department. Vista didn't do anything that Windows XP doesn't do faster and more efficiently. My Vista laptop died on me. My XP laptop with a new hard drive boots faster and runs faster than my Vista laptop did with a slower CPU (1.6Ghz Pentium M versus 2.1GHz Celeron) and a quarter of the memory in my Vista Laptop (512mb versus 2GB). I'm not wasting my money on Windows 7. You want to help make Microsoft and Intel rich? Be my guest.

I think most of these sales were people replacing Vista and many of them bought the $49.00 Version from Amazon,
I figure MS owes me for the replacement of vista so I installed the home premium for free on my laptop.

To Chris-
The fundaemtal problem with your statement is that it is obviously WRONG. If you were Right then there wouldn't have been a 237% increase in sales of Windows 7 over Vista sales.

Secondly, people don't have to spend $200 on Windows 7.

The fundamental problem with Windows 7 is that in a depression, people don't have $200 to blow on an OS that doesn't really do anything of value for them that XP doesn't do. Techies are fooling themselves if they think Joe 6 Pack actually cares about all of Windows 7 added "features".

Same for corporations.

Have a look at the foot of the page in the 'like as' items.......... eh eh eh!

Waiting for windows 8 is not really an option and you can't keep hanging on XP either.
Everyone who could go to Linux without problem is already there.