Windows 7 vs. the Competition
Ultimately, the overarching question you ask yourself about any new OS is “Is it better than what I’m using now?” So we asked respondents to compare Window 7 to earlier versions of Windows and other OSes they’ve used.
One of Microsoft’s major goals with Windows 7, presumably, is to make it a Windows upgrade that’s so appealing that millions of XP holdouts who spurned Vista finally make the jump. Our results are encouraging on that front: Fifty-five percent of respondents said it’s much better than XP, and more than 90 percent say it’s at least somewhat better. Only 5 percent say it’s worse than XP.
I wasn’t sure if survey respondents would rate Windows 7 as a bigger advance over Vista than over XP (because they disliked Vista) or as less of an advance over Vista than over XP (since Windows 7 bears more resemblance to Vista than it does to XP). As it turned out, the bottom line was almost identical: 55 percent say it’s much better, and more than ninety percent say it’s an improvement.
Fewer respondents had logged enough time on a Mac to compare Windows Vista with OS X. Those who did didn’t come to much of a consensus–a plurality said the two OSes are about the same, with smaller groups saying that W7 is either better or worse than OS X. But perhaps it’s a positive sign for Windows 7 that it wasn’t blown out of the water by Apple’s OS.
Meanwhile, 59 percent of respondents who responded to our Linux question said that Windows 7 is better than Linux, and only ten percent said that it’s worse than Linux.
Share/E-Mail | Read more about:
March 12th, 2009 at 3:10 am
“Price is going to be a major consideration with Windows 7. Microsoft is shedding jobs, outsourcing, and contributing to a falling economy. At the same time, they still think their software is worth premium prices. Vista proves that this is not true. The price needs to be more reasonable, or I will continue switching my household computers to Macs. There is NO reason for Windows 7 to cost any more than OSX. In fact, it should cost less.”
Except to use a Mac, you need to buy a whole new machine. OSX + Machine is more costly than windows by itself.
And £100-£150 for an operating system is not premium prices. Premium pricing is like Photoshop, £1000+
March 12th, 2009 at 3:46 am
I assume the commenter was intending to replace hardware as it becomes obsolete, so the machine cost largely irrelevant here.
Don’t forget that this £100-£150 is an *upgrade* cost, not a purchase cost. Also, it is for an operating system, that merely enables you to use your computer – it should just work.
That Vista works so badly that many will feel the need to upgrade to remove the pain suggests that a lot of people will feel upset that they are being charged again for what they should have been provided with in the first place.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:04 am
Your charts would be much more readable if the “y” item order was always the same, and the “x” scale was constant.
You could then do graphical comparisons without having to read the axes each time.
March 12th, 2009 at 8:35 am
You can see the financial motivation for Microsoft to really hit a home run with Windows 7.
It will be tough to win me over from Fedora Core 10, but I remain open.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:17 am
ok so concider this – the beta was only available to technet subscribers (i am one – so no fan boy flames) most technet subscribers are Microsoft professionals the other bunch are the torrent crowd alot of which acquire unpaid for software and dont pay licence fees – picking up MS exploits on the way – these groups have only ever and will only ever (for the foreseable future) used MS operating systems
I would like to see a a real comprehensive usage comparison with a distribution like mint linux, which has proven to me to be a better out of the box experience than any microsoft OS – my client base is aged 8 to 70 years old and ranges from the technophobic to the professional – very single person (around 40) i have installed a modern linux distribution for has adopted it as the full time primary OS. for ease of use for functionality for cost effectiveness, stability and security being the primary focus for all.
open source needs fully independent representation with no political or financial agenda !
March 12th, 2009 at 10:54 am
first commenter:
“The price needs to be more reasonable, or I will continue switching my household computers to Macs”
huh? because Macs are so reasonably priced? wtf?
March 12th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
“huh? because Macs are so reasonably priced? wtf?”
Suggest you look in Technologizer’s archive for their series of articles comparing Mac and a range of PC vendor prices feature by feature …
March 12th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
pipertehc –
That is incorrect. The beta release was made available to anyone who wanted to download it from Microsoft.com, and was downloaded by over a million non-TechNet / non-MSDN users.
March 17th, 2009 at 6:20 am
The one drawback I’ve seen in Windows 7 is its readiness (or lack thereof) to address enterprise security concerns – the cost of upgrading to the 2008 R2 server in order to use DirectAccess could be prohibitive.
More discussion of Win 7’s enterprise-worthiness: http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=2230
More discussion of Win 7 security: http://vpnhaus.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/windows-7-ready-yet-for-enterprise-primetime/
June 9th, 2009 at 5:48 am
I’ve read on many blogs that the install process of win 7 would have been faster, but I didn’t really noticed any improvement on it; especially if compared to vista. It takes 35minutes on fast machines and 1hour in slow ones.
June 9th, 2009 at 6:17 am
Apple’s announcement yesterday that Snow Leopard will be available for $29 really puts the pressure on Microsoft. Both Windows 7 and OS X 10.6 are evolutionary releases, rather than revolutionary ones with a swathe of new features.
Should Microsoft price Windows upgrades higher than Apple’s rate, would that reflect a feeling that while most Mac users are pretty content with 10.5, many more PC users are less than happy with Vista, and so would pay a larger premium to upgrade?