Microsoft says next Windows won't be as annoying

if Microsoft would just sell an annoyware killer program we would be ok.

too bad my iPhone doesn't run Vista -or I could be complaining also.

Win98 SE2, or Win2000 were the bomb but all the SPs hurt Xp -that and my Firewall, Virus Scanner, Spyware analyzer, Bloatwear killer, etc... ...

My computer has the Monkey King! n.n;

The one of most powerful feature of Linux that no other popular OS has it's a software repository. So untaring and manual script start to install something like flash player is redundant and generally obsolete these days.

As to "user friendliness" is another word for "learning curve". All OSes have a different steepness but amount of knowledge to obtain to feel oneself comfortably is roughly the same.

Office Suite is available for Linux... OpenOffice is a fine replacement to MSOffice if you're not bound to its macroses. ;)

What really Linux is lack of is imaging tools like Photoshop and Macromedia Flash. GIMP is a looming threat to Adobe but not here yet. IMHO, of course.

harharhar, yup, I remember that paperclip and the stu*** dog coming out and which irritates everybody. Mac does not crash? duh. I had Mac G3, then G4, iMac, Icube, Macbook and even the early laptop 1993 ed and I say XP and Vista are more user friendly, it is easier to learn for most individual, and work with almost all available softwares. If you want to look at computers go for Mac, they make good and cool designs. Linux/Ubuntu? I keep on telling myself to learn the OS but I never find it easy (I am not a geek). A new OS not as annoying as Vista and less hardware requirements is a welcome. The faster Microsoft phase-out vista, the better.

BRING BACK THE TALKING PAPER CLIP!

Linux maybe a better OS however, it is still far far away from being user friendly to average users.

I don't know about now but, just to install a simple flash player I had to untar the package and run the script manually. It doesn't sound too complex but if you ask average joe to do that, he will go, Huh?

Maybe Linux does not have to be mainstream because it bears a lot of responsibility and may kill Linux innovation.

"If we adopt an unique OS, everything will be easier, because being universal it will be at first accesible"

One of the reasons Windows is so susceptible to viruses is precisely because the program is exactly the same on each PC. On the other hand, a virus which targets my version of Linux (Slackware) is unlikely to work on Ubuntu etc. Diversity enhances security, whereas a Windows monoculture is prone to malware on a grand scale.

"(because if you use the uncomfortable "word" in linux, you can not open a doccument in a PC with windows or pictures i.e.)"

Word isn't available for Linux, and I wouldn't use it if it was. LaTex produces far superior output and costs nothing. You can also use LaTex on Windows. Files are saved in plain text format, so you are not locked in to secret file formats which leave you at the mercy of the software vendor.

"by the other hand, it will be less expensive, because being globally accepted it reduces costs."

Windows costs hundreds of dollars per copy, Linux costs nothing. Windows is expensive because it is almost a monopoly. Competition lowers costs for everyone. The costs of dealing with viruses, licenses, software audits etc are much higher for Windows than for other platforms.

Perhaps I should switch to a Mac - apparently they never crash.

Mine crashed a couple of weeks ago, first time ever in the 4-5 years I've had it. Never had that happen before - panic stations! Turned out to be a faulty memory, not the mac.

Come into the light, Ah_so......

:-)

So who uses Windows anyway?

Is this another way of saying:

"Hey look at me! I've got a Mac and I am just sooo cool. Look at you with your PCs, you repressed hypocrites. I have a lovely Mac. It may just be a step up from a Fisher Price child's "computer" and have one button on the mouse, but it says a load about my personality. Anyway, I need to go out and buy a really large double latte decaff."

Anyway, thank God I did not go anywhere near Vista. No one could explain what it did that was special anyway. Even on XP by Explorer is now defunct and any attempt to upgrade Media Player renders it useless.

Perhaps I should switch to a Mac - apparently they never crash.

Microsoft might say the release date will be 2010 but they have always been about a year late on their release date which puts us to 2011.

Then we have to wait a year for them to release Service Pack 1 (let all the other suckers who buy it when it first comes out be the paying Beta Testers) so that puts us out to 2012.

Am very happy with XP until then thank you and MAYBE Microsoft will get it right this time (but don't hold your breath).

Oh yes and for those of you who say that Microsoft has said it would drop support of XP by the end of 2009 think again we went thru this same thing when we went from Windows 98SE to Windows 2000. Remember that most commerical Big Business did not go to Vista but stayed with XP and if you think that Microsoft wants to piss these people off think again (like I said we went thru this before with Win 98SE..history repeats itself)

Who uses windows??... only a blind outsider or an "OTAKU" would say such a thing... 95% of people in the whole world uses Windows. Nothing more to say.

vista is actually cool, I used to hate it but once you get past the learning curve its actually better than xp except for the need for quite steep hardware requirements. A new OS? hmm actually, its just a repackaged vista less the annoying properties...can't wait for it.

"So who uses Windows anyway?"

Well, as of June, Microsoft sold 60 million Windows Vista licenses...

So who uses Windows anyway?

Your words "Linux is a better alternative to windows", but not "LINUX IS BETTER THAN WINDOWS", you could say this, if you really believe Linux is really good, isn't it?, but you don't, and by the other hand the using of alternative only remarks you are an outsider. On the other hand "Linux doesn't fight against a uniform and better way, linux is the uniform and better way", sorry dude, only in your dreams, because if you can understand some simple stadistics... more people in the whole world use and preffer to use windows, around 93-95%.

what percentage of people want something like Linux? And how many Linux users are there out there? I’ve read about a number of different ways to tabulate this sort of thing, and they all suffer from different methodological issues; Web server statistics on visitors, for instance, aren’t very reliable because the client can claim it’s any kind of OS or browser it wants.

With Windows, it’s at least possible to guess based on the number of licenses sold, or the number of activated machines, etc. With Linux, it’s far harder to guess because of things like biased self-reporting, redundancy, and the lack of a really reliable set of metrics. If I have a Linux box and a Windows box, does that count in one, the other, or both, or neither? And if I download ten distributions but don’t actually use any one of them in a fulltime production system, does that count?

This is why the Dell / Ubuntu sales figures are going to be immensely interesting, because they’ll provide at least some indication of how things are shaping up for Linux -- at least within Dell’s ecosystem. It’s probably not going to be a reliable guide as to how Linux is faring overall on the desktop, since that’s not something you could gauge from any one vendor’s sales -- Dell’s sales probably do not extrapolate smoothly into desktop sales in general. It’s also not going to tell us how many people obtain such machines but don’t actually run Linux on it in the long run -- some folks might buy such a box to get a taste of Linux, then wipe it and install Windows (or even BSD) after a few months.

That’s something else that is going to be tough to measure, even for a company like Dell: Long-term commitment to Linux, especially by people who are not interested one way or another in its technical merits. I’ve received many comments from people who have picked up Ubuntu or another distribution and sworn off ever going back to Windows. That’s great, but I always wonder: Will they still say the same thing in a year? I don’t ask these questions to be snide -- I just think that if Linux wants to work well on the desktop (notice I didn’t say “replace Windows,” just “work well”), there needs to be at least some attention paid to why a user might defect, or how long they stick around before doing so (and what pushes them off).

Remember, around 93-95% of the people in the world uses windows, there must be a reason isn't it?. So, please think better before says something hilarious like "linux is the uniform and better way". It would be like saying "is better to speak greek and refuse learn/use english, living in U.S., only a blind would said so.

Linux is a better alternative to windows because it gives the power back to the user. You can do anything with linux that you can also do with windows and it is more stable and it uses less resources.

The only thing that linux still has issues with is playing games on it.

Linux doesn't fight against a uniform and better way, linux is the uniform and better way.

Linux is for outsiders, who pretend to fight against an uniform and better way. If we adopt an unique OS, everything will be easier, because being universal it will be at first accesible (because if you use the uncomfortable "word" in linux, you can not open a doccument in a PC with windows or pictures i.e.), by the other hand, it will be less expensive, because being globally accepted it reduces costs. But of course, for some people is better to be an outsider saying something like: "i like rainny days, because i like to use coat, when almost everybody preffer a sunny day and of course not to use a coat". Ok, you hate Billy Gates, obviously you envy him, but don't pretend to say LINUX is better than windows or something foolish about MAC, because everybody knows... only ladies like Sarah Jessica Parker and and pretentious people who pretend to be cool own a MAC.

Microsoft used all kind of underhand tactics to become oparating monopolist. Now with the economic pressure Linux becomes more viable as costs becomes an issue.

Newer Linux versions are getting more userfriendlyer and it doesn't use as much resources as Vista does.

But windows 7 less annoying i wont bet on it.

Linux is for outsiders, Mac for pretentious. I like windows and i actually love Vista (Windows Media Player 11 is cool and better than the useless Itunes software), but i am really angry, because it took me time to learn how to use correctly Vista and now i have to learn something different again..., please give us some rest..., we dont need to change so quickly isnt it?, are we compiting or running against any other company?. So... please give us a break. And for the people complaining about Automatic Update and sily details like that... YOU CAN DISABLE THAT FUNCTION, if it bothers you, then maybe you should buy a manual or learn how to use your pc at first isnt it?.

All that hate about Microsoft....I wonder how many of you are using other OS to access this site and write the message.

Microsoft made the whole PC concept popular in the World...if MAC and unix (and buddies) were all that good, windows won't be the OS for most of the PC in the world, and, PCs won't be that many in the first place. MAC has always been a boutique shop, never main stream, and Unix (and bussdies) has never been easy for regular Joes. So, shout as you want, MS will remain big for long.

New slogan should be "Hasta la Vista, baby."

I use a mac at home. Use windows at work and have about 40 errors or program crashes a day.

Use Ubuntu Linux and you never have to read these Microsoft articles again.

Have been holding off on buying a new Mac because the one I have works fine and I'm perfectly happy with the range of functions. Windows PC's remain dark and dangerous to me. I wouldn't even consider them.

:-)

Microsoft just may learn that with the global recession in full swing now many companies and home users even moreso may not feel like dishing out another $200 or so for yet another new version of Windows. At some point even an OS maker has to be able to answer the consumer's question "will this new version save me money somehow?" The answer is probably not since no "new" version of windows has actually saved anyone any money. Forcing consumers to "upgrade" ever since W95 has been nothing more than a function of MS telling us how great the new version is, new software (or hardware) requiring the newer OS, and PC makers preloading the newer OS on their latest products. It's really been, and continues to be quite a scam.

Have been holding off on buying a new PC to avoid Vista. XP works fine and I'm perfectly happy with the range of functions.

Mac's remain dark and dangerous to me. I wouldn't even consider them.

I imagine the web versions of MS Office will only work with Internet Explorer, otherwise there would be no need for Windows.

I can do all my work without any Microsoft software. There's no need to constantly update firewalls, virus and spyware scanners etc. No need to worry about licenses or be forced to run Microsofts' "Genuine Advantage" program. No need to have Microsofts' DRM programs running all the time, trying to stop you using your computer in the way that you want. No need to spend any money on buggy, bloated software.

No need for Microsoft at all.

Microsoft finally realized how user-unfriendly Vista really is. Most businesses and IT professionals still use good old XP if not completely abandon Windows.

Windows Automatic Update is bugging me to restart my computer as I type this...

Microsoft says next Windows won't be as annoying

that headline is so funny I almost spit coffee out my nose....

Thanks JT you made my morning!

we took so much pain and just got used to Windows 'annoyance' and now...new version new classes?