Windows 7 PC Sales Ended on Friday 31 October 2014

[kenC]

So, how do we disable Bing? I did it in the first version, can't do it now.

 

[gregrocker]

Nothing more than 8.1 with a start menu stuck with bing search default which means you type anything in the search box and hit the enter key and boom your on a bing search page
8.1 and Start8 is better but I suppose 10 and Start10 will be available

Click on the IE11 gear icon to select Manage Add-Ons, click Search, then the link at bottom to Add another Provider. Select Google Search at top of page, set as Default, allow suggestions. Tick the box to not allow any other Search providers. Then highlight Bing and Remove.

Make sure to hide Bingware via Updates, and to uninstall in Control Panel if it sneaks in.

 

[matts6887]

I think until they stop supporting windows 7; Im gonna continue using it; as i just do not like the layout of 8.1 and other newer o.s.'s. I think they should have stuck with the windows 7 design and just did some other sort of tweaks of some sort or another.

 

[SIW2]

What improvements?

It is bloody annoying.

The only way they will get people to buy that thing is to remove the competition ( win 7 ) from the shelves.

It doesn't matter much that is is still possible to get oem copy and install it - the vast majority don't know how. It also doesn't matter that business machines will be available running 7 Pro. That is intended for business users. Consumers won't know where to get them from, and they won't be cheap.

What I've seen of Win 10 so far has been a great improvement over Win 8.x and a slight improvement over Win 7. However, the improvement isn't enough to convince me to switch from Win 7...yet; it's still in the testing stages and a lot can change between now and when it is RTM.

 

[groze]

I think until they stop supporting windows 7; Im gonna continue using it; as i just do not like the layout of 8.1 and other newer o.s.'s. I think they should have stuck with the windows 7 design and just did some other sort of tweaks of some sort or another.

I did find something comparable to windows 7, it is called ubuntu. It been accused of spyware. It can be disabled in Privacy section. It now inform you of the Amazon search when installing. I didn't really care for it, looks to my like windows 10 start menu (who copied who). What I did is installed Lubuntu, then I install the xfce4 desktop using apt-get. I could never get Xubuntu which include xfce desktop to work on my system. If you need to use wireless on Lubuntu with Xfce4 installed you need to use sudo apt-get install xfce4-indicator-plugin

My current boot system with Grub 2 installed
Lubuntu with Xfce desktop (Application menu looks like Windows 98se)
Windows 7 (I use this the most)
Windows 10 preview. (I use this the least)

Has Microsoft even thought of going LGPL with Desktops, this way people can choose which desktops that want to use from windows 1 to windows 10 and on.

Sorry about my grammar.

 

[whs]

I wonder how much (if any) this will impact PC sales. If there is a significant impact, the PC manufacturers will scream 'murder'.

 

[SIW2]

Not sure what you mean by pc sales.

MS have probably done enough to prevent the EEEW reaction when punters see it.

 

[Layback Bear]

I know W-10 is in it's infant stage but so far I haven't seen anything that would make me want to leave W-7.
I really hoping W-10 shows me enough to want to buy it.

 

[Anshad Edavana]

I did find something comparable to windows 7, it is called ubuntu. It been accused of spyware. It can be disabled in Privacy section. It now inform you of the Amazon search when installing. I didn't really care for it, looks to my like windows 10 start menu (who copied who). What I did is installed Lubuntu, then I install the xfce4 desktop using apt-get. I could never get Xubuntu which include xfce desktop to work on my system. If you need to use wireless on Lubuntu with Xfce4 installed you need to use sudo apt-get install xfce4-indicator-plugin

With all due respect, i don't think neither OS X nor Ubuntu is a replacement to classic Windows OS. In my country, Apple computers costs two to three times higher than Windows ones so they are far beyond the reach of common users. On the other hand, Linux is powerful and promising but yet it is not a replacement to Windows. Being open source is it's biggest drawback. Anybody can modify the source code and create their own OS. So everyone started to code their own operating systems and now we are stuck with more than 500 distributions instead of a single distro which really works.

 

[Alejandro85]

Being open source is it's biggest drawback. Anybody can modify the source code and create their own OS. So everyone started to code their own operating systems and now we are stuck with more than 500 distributions instead of a single distro which really works.

Really? How can being open source be a drawback? No way. Being open source give enormous benefits for any project, one of them is preciely the chance of forking, as it gives options to create more variants, fix bugs in original projects, creating diverse developments and most important of all it gives freedom from vendor lock-in. Being free software also gives more option to users to collaborate modifications, bug fixes, report security problems and increased chances of them being fixed.

Compare that to proprietary software (like Windows). If you don't like newer versions, so sorry, you can't do anything but stay in the older. If you find a bug you can only report it and pray that the developer cares to fix it, the same as for new feature request or even if newer versions remove working features. And if the developer decides to not further offer the program, the community can't do anything about it but to stay with the latest possible version and hope it works while searching for a replacement.

Of course, something like the explosive development as Linux had, such a number of different distros may scare newcomers into choosing one, making a somewhat uninformed decition. This is a particular case rarely seen in any free software project, and even though it keeping it free is still a great pro for Linux.

 

[andrew129260]

Being open source is it's biggest drawback. Anybody can modify the source code and create their own OS. So everyone started to code their own operating systems and now we are stuck with more than 500 distributions instead of a single distro which really works.

Really? How can being open source be a drawback? No way. Being open source give enormous benefits for any project, one of them is precisely the chance of forking, as it gives options to create more variants, fix bugs in original projects, creating diverse developments and most important of all it gives freedom from vendor lock-in. Being free software also gives more option to users to collaborate modifications, bug fixes, report security problems and increased chances of them being fixed.

Compare that to proprietary software (like Windows). If you don't like newer versions, so sorry, you can't do anything but stay in the older. If you find a bug you can only report it and pray that the developer cares to fix it, the same as for new feature request or even if newer versions remove working features. And if the developer decides to not further offer the program, the community can't do anything about it but to stay with the latest possible version and hope it works while searching for a replacement.

Of course, something like the explosive development as Linux had, such a number of different distros may scare newcomers into choosing one, making a somewhat uninformed decision. This is a particular case rarely seen in any free software project, and even though it keeping it free is still a great pro for Linux.

I agree on both points. I can see both sides to those arguments. I am in the camp that for me personally, Windows cannot be replaced by linux. However, the average user does not do much on there machines. They do the basics, email, web, photos, videos, etc. so they are completely fine using something like Ubuntu or even zorin (more familiar). My mom runs ubuntu and does fine with it.

 

[groze]

Alejandro85, Thank you for explaining open source better than I can.

Andrew129260, I never could get Zorin to install. I more of a windows 98 theme person myself.
Here my lubuntu xfce4 desktop

 

[whs]

I used Zorin for a while. I found it very buggy and restrictive in functions. I am a Mint Mate fan now. Here is a little demo I made so you understand what I mean. Look at the beauty of that start menu.

 

[lehnerus2000]

Being open source is it's biggest drawback. Anybody can modify the source code and create their own OS. So everyone started to code their own operating systems and now we are stuck with more than 500 distributions instead of a single distro which really works.

Really? How can being open source be a drawback? No way. Being open source give enormous benefits for any project, one of them is precisely the chance of forking, as it gives options to create more variants, fix bugs in original projects, creating diverse developments and most important of all it gives freedom from vendor lock-in. Being free software also gives more option to users to collaborate modifications, bug fixes, report security problems and increased chances of them being fixed.
...

I agree on both points. I can see both sides to those arguments. I am in the camp that for me personally, Windows cannot be replaced by linux. However, the average user does not do much on there machines. They do the basics, email, web, photos, videos, etc. so they are completely fine using something like Ubuntu or even zorin (more familiar). My mom runs ubuntu and does fine with it.

I read an article citing a study that indicated that too few choices (or too many choices) causes consumer/user dissatisfaction.

IMO, the Linux Distro GUI tools lack features compared to the Windows GUI tools.

One of the issues with Linux is that peripheral manufacturers are reluctant to write Linux Distro drivers.

If there are too many distros sharing the market, manufacturers won't bother to write drivers.
If a distro (let's say Ubuntu) has say >50M users, they would seriously consider providing drivers & GUI tools.

For example, I have an ATI graphics card.
Linux Mint 17 has a "generic" driver, but I also have a choice of 2 ATI drivers.
Using the "generic" driver, I have some minor compositing issues (so I have to turn compositing off).

If I install the ATI proprietary drivers, they underscan by ~10%.
Since there are no ATI GUI tools, I can't adjust the settings.

My friend and I spent many hours fixing display issues in my previous install (Ubuntu 10 with an NVidia graphics card), as a result, I can't be bothered searching for instructions on how to fix it, so I use the generic driver instead.

 

[groze]

Don't people have trouble with NVidia graphicas drivers in Windows? Now with Dell working with Ubuntu, this may change the landscape but it is going to take time. I think Dell is using the lindows proprietary dvd driver for their Ubuntu systems to play dvds legally.

 

[Anshad Edavana]

Really? How can being open source be a drawback?

"Opensource" software model is not practical. Nobody own anything in the opensource world. If you put a lot hardwork and time to code a peace of software, it won't pay your bills. That is what happened to the developer of "Parted Magic". He is forced to make "Parted Magic" as a commercial software, which was open source and free for a long time.

Let's see how 'Canonical" ( developers of "Ubuntu" ), pays salary to it's employees.

canonical - How does Ubuntu make money? - Ask Ubuntu

Firstly a lot of people work on Ubuntu in their free time (many of them programming, but also those of here for instance answering people's questions). Also some people donate to Ubuntu.

However there is more to the story. Canonical Ltd. is a private company that created and continues to pay for Ubuntu. We know Canonical hadn't been making a profit, but Canonical was initially founded by millionaire Mark Shuttleworth which meant it didn't have to focus on making money right away.

However Canonical is now looking towards to making Ubuntu profitable. (After all, they have 600+ employees to pay every month!) There are some indications this has been successful. Their key revenue streams offer services around Ubuntu:

Support services (mostly to business) alongside which they sell Landscape
Contracting services to businesses (for instance working with OEMs such as Dell, or helping Google with Chrome OS). As Ubuntu makes its way onto mobile phones and TVs then this will grow.
Ubuntu Software Centre's paid section (Canonical takes a cut of purchases)
The Canonical Store (selling physical Ubuntu branded items)
Closed-source projects wishing to use Launchpad.net can purchase a license
Ubuntu One (online file storage and syncronisation service - discontinued) and Music Store (selling music from within Ubuntu - discontinued)
All of these are areas that Canonical hopes will grow.

No open sources project will survive without enough fund to back it. Without the financial support of billionaire Mark Richard Shuttleworth , there won't be Ubuntu at all. Without Ubuntu, there won't be Mint, Zorin and other countless distros based on it.

Compare that to proprietary software (like Windows). If you don't like newer versions, so sorry, you can't do anything but stay in the older. If you find a bug you can only report it and pray that the developer cares to fix it, the same as for new feature request or even if newer versions remove working features. And if the developer decides to not further offer the program, the community can't do anything about it but to stay with the latest possible version and hope it works while searching for a replacement.

A lot of peoples are unhappy about the "Unity" crap in "Ubuntu". Then why "Canonical" is not using old good "Genome" with their newer versions of "Ubuntu" ?. Since open source softwares are free ( most are ), basically a user has no right to compliant about quality or lack of features. Nobody is responsible to answer anyone in the open source world.

In case of commercial software, a user has the right to complain about the product and they can optionally choose not to buy it. That is what happened with "Windows 8". It is the users who forced "Microsoft" to bring back a modern style start menu with their upcoming Windows.


Another drawback of Linux is the proper support for hardware - even if the hardware manufacturer supports Linux. One particular example is printers. Just check the documentation on how to install Cannon LBP 2900 printer on Ubuntu.

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/CanonCaptDrv190

How many average computer users will be able to follow those CLI stuff posted there ?. Then compare it with the simple "Click -Click" driver install of "Windows" - even a kindergarten child will be able to do that.

 

[lehnerus2000]

Red Hat does OK though.

Just like in the original Robocop movie, the money is in Service Agreements.

 

[Anshad Edavana]

Red Hat does OK though.

Red Hat is not free software my dear friend. As i like said earlier, it is not practical to put your time and money to develop a OS and give it for free. "Red Hat" is just a perfect example.

Whether a peace of software is free or not, people are not going to use it unless it fits their needs. GNU project started even before Microsoft is born. Then why GNU/Linux doesn't became the number one OS ?. No it is not Microsoft's money and power. Even after spending millions to advertise about Vista, it was still a flip. Neither Windows 8 didn't meet Microsoft's expectations. Unless "Linux" developers understands why "Windows XP" is still the most successful OS ever created ( and why Vista flopped ), Linux is not going to overthrow Windows.

 

[groze]

No open sources project will survive without enough fund to back it. Without the financial support of billionaire Mark Richard Shuttleworth , there won't be Ubuntu at all. Without Ubuntu, there won't be Mint, Zorin and other countless distros based on it.

You don't need a millionaire to fund open source projects. Have you ever heard of Puppy Linux? This was created out of his home and in his spare time. There still is a current distro available.

Canonical and/or Gnome developers did listen, they now how Gnome classic as well Gnome unity, believe it or not some people like unity. The complaints were about the Amazon search being installed without notice, now there is a notice and there is a way to disable it (Actually there always been a way to disable it). The other complaints was them about the contract to develop Unity. That why there are several forks, like xUbuntu, lUbuntu and many others. I use lUbuntu with xfce4 desktop installed.

If you read the linux forums most developers are volunteers and do not get paid.

Then why GNU/Linux doesn't became the number one OS ?

Some people thought it was illegal to use. Not everyone likes using the command line and a lot people don't like entering passwords every time a root/sudo function is needed. Most computers are pre-installed with Windows not Linux for contractual reasons. Hardware drivers was hard to find until companies like Intel started using open source drivers. I think I am actually using a open source graphic driver on my Windows 7 system. There are some programs that won't run on Linux even with wine installed. I dual boot (I triple boot right now.) Also Wine 32 bit software can run windows 16 bit programs even if a 64 bit linux distro operating system is install without secure boot.

 

[townsbg]

The big money behind Linux isn't the OS but in it's use and I'm not referring to enterprise or enthusiasts desktop users but in the server realm. Lets face it, that's where the OS has found it's niche because other than mainframes and iseries systems big businesses have a choice in either Unix based systems or Windows and the windows server isn't as useful or friendly, and it is also expensive. The only real value in having a windows server is for active directory, building applications on asp.net, or running Microsoft proprietary software. There is some enterprise software only on windows but not much. Now on the desktop side the user may not have much of a selection other than open source but on the enterprise side all of the major software companies have their database or application hosting software available for linux. However the big bucks isn't even in selling the OS since it is open source but in supporting it. Companies will pay big bucks to have their servers built and supported so that their applications are always available to their users. The desktop world is dominated Windows and by companies that develop software for Windows. Second to that is Mac and linux will always take a back seat to those 2 partly due to demand, partly due to lack of software support, but mostly because those companies can't make any money off of it. Due to the open source patent the distros can't sell the OS but can only sell their customizations, tools, programs, and support. Linux isn't as friendly as windows for your typical desktop user either.