Wow suck a nut man. How on earth is it an OS X copy? That's nonsense. I dual boot windows 7 and OS X and they are entirely different in almost every aspect. (Actually, I tri-boot with ubuntu) Windows 7 is HUGELY different from Vista. Okay, it looks the same and has the cool easy search features and looks pretty. Windows 7 rapes XP in both speed and looks. I actually haven't bumped into a SINGLE program that wasn't compatible, yet. Windows 7 is amazing, and screw this little post. YOURE WRONG. And so what if upgrading from XP requires a clean install? It's not like you'll lose all your files. It backs up all of your files into a Windows.old folder. Have you even tried Windows 7? There's been a free beta out for like, FOREVER, and it RULES. And guess what, I use it on all of my machines now. Especially my netbook. Much, much better than XP. Also, Windows 7 RAPES Vista in EVERY way. It is smaller and more powerful than Vista, and even faster than XP. My netbook boots in... 25 seconds? To windows 7? Beat that. OS X takes about 2 minutes to boot whereas ubuntu is about 25 seconds. It's OS X and ubuntu that just suck. For one reason: Windows has been the most popular operating system for the longest, therefore MOST programs are incompatible with the shitty hand-me-down OS's. Also, if you buy laptops now they'll actually come with a free Windows 7 upgrade when it comes out. So...... Yeah. Windows 7 = rape. There are a million reasons to upgrade. Just try google.

• Sent on 23 Oct 2009

" But there will inevitably be tools or small business applications designed for particular businesses which don’t work well with it. The only solution to this is the XP compatibility mode only available in the more expensive editions. " If a small business is running more than 5 computers and they DON'T buy a volume license edition ( I believe it's called Enterprise ) then that's the small business owner's fault for being a dipshit. I'd call out more incorrect bits of your post, but it seems David Anderson already did that quite well enough. I still use XP on my main computer right now, but as soon as I get my Volume License edition of 7 ( should be very soon ) I'll be converting over.

• Sent on 23 Oct 2009

@LythKross - you forget that using the XP compatibility mode is only available for newer machines with 64bit compatibility. Nick pointed out a genuine issue here - it's not one that's exclusive to Windows 7 but it is worth bearing in mind all the same. @David Anderson - please try to find a better way of defining quality in a piece of software, other than 'rape'.

• Sent on 23 Oct 2009

Tom, Actually David is right just saying it in a wrong way. Vista's initial release was horrible. Nothing worked, it always froze and some other weird glitch appeared. Windows 7 x64 is better now than Vista x32 is with sp1. These writers repeat themselves each time a new OS comes out. They told people to steer clear of Vista when it came out and stick with XP. Now Windows 7 comes out and they say we should stick with XP or VISTA [yes the same OS they used to tell us to steer clear from]. When Windows 8 comes out they'll tell us to steer clear from it and stick with Vista or WINDOWS 7 [The only were currently supposed to avoid]. The fact is these people telling users to stick with XP and Vista can't stand change even if the change is for the better. They will ride out the oldest OS until they have no choice but to change and it doesn't matter if the newer one is better or not. Lesson learned is never listen to writers who make a living telling people to steer clear of new technology. XP User Reality: You will eventually have to upgrade, you won't have a choice. All updates to Windows XP will end soon enough. Then XP will only be as safe as Windows 2000. Windows 8 will be out by then and you will hear these same people telling you to skip 8 and stick to Vista and Windows 7. Because they can't let go of the past and the present is scary to them. Vista User Reality: Sticking with Vista is saying your fine with a slower, less stable and less secure OS. If you upgraded to Vista from XP then your doing yourself an injustice sticking with Vista rather than moving to a better OS. MAC OSX and LINUX Option: First off MAC OSX is not safer than Windows. It was hacked before Vista in a hacker's convention. The only reason it's more secure at the moment is very few people use it. The more who use it the more dangerous it becomes especially since MAC users are the fools who think a MAC can't get a virus even though the very first virus came from a MAC. Linux is not for most. If eye candy matters then Linux isn't for you. If simplicity matters then Linux is not for you. If ease of use matters then Linux is not for you. Linux is for hackers and tech geeks, normal users will be lost. So your choice is 1. Live in the past and ride out XP then move to a newer OS once the security updates end. 2. Ride out Vista until it's time expires even knowing Windows 7 RC was better than your current version of Vista. 3. Go with MAC OSX and get a dose of reality when enough users flock to it that hackers go after it and your MAC gets infected with malware and you have no way of protecting yourself because your one of the fools who thinks MACs can't get a virus. 4. Go with Linux and accept the fact it doesn't look nice, and is not easy to use unless your a tech geek. 5. Skip the inevitable and just get Windows 7 now instead of putting it off knowing eventually you end up with it anyways.

• Sent on 23 Oct 2009

There are a surprising number of Windows fanboys aren't there! The fact is that, having used the Windows 7 RC since it came out, it is clear that there is no reason not to upgrade other than because it's kind of expensive. There's no shame in sticking with Vista for a while. However, there shouldn't be any need to complain about the lack of easy upgrade from XP. If you have a computer that runs XP, leave it running XP. There's no benefits to be gained from upgrading to Windows 7 if it's such an old computer. David, you are bloody ineloquent. That said, this article does not really make any valid points (apart from price). Matt is clearly a stupid fanboy. Linux is NOT "just for hackers". My mother uses Ubuntu on her desktop, and she is technologically retarded. OSX is definitely not a security risk to the extent that is dangerous to use. We wouldn't have so many people use it for things like movie editing and whatnot if that was the case. Don't be an idiot.

• Sent on 23 Oct 2009

sid9102, Me a fanboy of MS? That's hilarious since all my friends call me an MS hater. I love how when you speak the truth your labeled a fanboy even though your usually known to hate the company by others. Tell me how can I be a fanboy when I try and convert everyone to Firefox from IE? How can I be a fanboy when I try and get everyone to get an iPod Touch over a Zune? How can I be a fanboy when none of my cellphones/PDAs use Windows Mobile? I've used Linux. I have had Ubuntu installed on my PC side by side with Windows. Unless all your doing is getting on and using the features already preinstalled on Linux then it's almost impossible to figure out. True if your just clicking on the browser to sign on and are doing nothing else, it's simple anyone can do that with any OS. But if you want to say install different products and don't like the current options available through their installer, you have to go into their DOS like feature and give commands for it to install a product. That's simple how? Yeah it's not except for a hacker and tech geeks. I can tell the guy who argues with me is a tech geek and/or a cheap a-s-s. No one makes their family members [specially those who almost know nothing about a PC] use Ubuntu unless 1. Their cheap and won't fork over money for an OS or 2. Their a tech geek and want everyone to be part of their world. As for MAC. It's been proven it's been easier to hack. If you doubt it then your either a MAC fanboy and don't want to accept the truth or your not up to date with your information and in which case are arguing to try and make yourself more knowledgeable than you actually are. The hackers convention happened. They put three OS's to the table. MAC Leopard, Windows Vista and Ubuntu in a three day test. Day one none fell, day 2 Leopard was hacked then by end of the convention only Ubuntu was unhackable. Please next time you argue have information to give that defines your argument. The only idiot is the one who says something is simple because they force something on someone then claims it easier because that person uses it. No s-h-i-t they use it because they have no choice. If their as dumb as you claim they wouldn't know how to install Windows they just click on the browser that's already there. Wow a dumb person uses Ubuntu because their forced to, that so proves me wrong. Not. Don't say she's stupid then decided by choice to go with another OS because if she chose Ubuntu by choice she's not an idiot unless she's as big a cheap a-s-s as you and chose free over paying. In which case she wouldn't care how difficult it was because she wasn't gonna do anything except click on the browser. So what is she cheap or force fed the OS? It has to be one or the other. Even if it came with Ubuntu someone was either cheap when they got it for her, or a tech geek. Truth hurts, I know.

• Sent on 24 Oct 2009

@Tom Clarke, Actually, Windows 7 32-bit does support XP Mode. There are additional files you need to download (for free) from Microsoft's site, but once they're installed, you have the same XP virtualization that the 64-bit environment supports. Admittedly, Nicholas is correct in saying that the XP Compatibility option is only available in the 'more expensive' versions — Professional, Enterprise, and Ultimate — but the XP Compatibility option is available for 32-bit systems. Regarding David Anderson's post, while I agree that the rape references and language choices are a bit off-putting, you state that he is 'completely wrong.' I was wondering how you came by that assessment. He states that he's found it faster than XP and Vista, that he hasn't found any programs that weren't compatible, that the beta's been available for quite some time, that newer laptops are offered with free Windows 7 upgrades, and that the installation of Windows 7 backs up files into a Windows.old folder. I was just wondering where he was 'completely wrong' in what he said. On the subject of 'completely wrong,' Nicholas indicates that "while Mac and Linux can access Windows files and install the two operating systems together, this is not the case in Windows 7," and yet that statement is demonstrably false. It's quite possible to install Windows 7 alongside OS X and Linux in either a dual-boot or virtualized environment, much as you can install Linux alongside OS X or OS X alongside Windows XP, Vista, or 7. Incidentally, it's true that "there will inevitably be tools or small business applications designed for particular businesses which don’t work well with [Windows 7]." This mirrors the situation wherein a number of Mac applications — including some from a few major vendors —stopped working with OS X when OS X removed its Classic Mode from 10.5. And let's not get into the issues some users had when Apple dropped support for legacy Palm devices in OS X 10.6's iSync. If the issue with upgrading to Windows 7 is that there will inevitably be some issues with some software on some users' systems, then no Mac users should ever have upgraded from OS X 10.3. One other note: it's a bit disingenuous for the writer to indicate prices of his preferred software in Euros, with prices of the Windows software in US Dollars. That bit of pricing chicanery aside, he doesn't mention the fact that 10.6 is the first version of OS X that didn't cost between $129 and $179 USD. I take issue with a number of claims and statements that Nicholas made in his post, but he's certainly welcome to state his opinion. Some of what he's stated is, based on my personal experience, either incorrect or not as precise as it otherwise might be. For my money, the upgrade to Windows 7 is worth it. In real-world use, none of the applications that I use have shown any incompatibility. I had to update two device drivers, and everything else ran out of the box. Other people may not find the same value in Windows 7 that I did, but that doesn't obviate the fact that — for me — the upgrade is worth it. Ultimately, we all have to decide whether specific new features and functions will make our lives easier. Whether this means sticking with Vista or XP, upgrading to Windows 7, remaining with the flavor of Linux we like, or holding fast to the OS X line, we're the ones who need to make that choice. Opinion pieces such as this — once again, in my opinion — do a disservice to the consumer because they present opinion as fact, and they gloss over the similarities in other systems in order to make the image they're crafting align more closely with the reality they're attempting to create.

• Sent on 26 Oct 2009

@Jonathan - Well, Mr. Anderson does say very little one could actually qualify as a valid statement and his interest in rape would, I think, merit the description 'completely wrong'. Apart from that: yes, he was right on some of the points you list. He was wrong about boot time for OS X (though it's possible he's running that OS on a machine for which it was not explicitly designed); he was wrong to describe Windows as 'better' simply because it has been "the most popular operating system for the longest" - which proves precisely nothing; he also seems to miss the fact that we ran a post on the reasons in favor of upgrading just a day before this post was published (http://onsoftware.en.softonic.com/7-reasons-to-upgrade-to-windows-7/). My opinion of Windows 7 isn't simple. I think it's a lot better than Vista, but that's partly because Vista was a joke. I think that when it comes to innovation in user experience, Apple is still streets ahead of Microsoft. E.g: the start menu, which was ruined in Vista has not been fixed; the touch interface is useless for 99% of users; the shaky-window-hide-window feature is clumsily implemented. In terms of real improvements from Vista to W7, what needed to be fixed has sometimes been fixed. But strategic failings in what Microsoft offers continue unsolved (like the silliness of having multiple editions). That said, I like W7 and have recommended it to Windows users... it's an improvement. Most of the points in Nick's post are perfectly valid 'reasons not to upgrade', as per the title of the post. There are plenty of other reasons you could pick from, just as there are reasons in favor of upgrading. Linking to our previous post and indicating more clearly that this post contains opinion might have made it clearer what we were trying to do with this post. As you can see, our editorial content regarding W7 has been broadly positive and encouraging. I don't think that failing to offer a dissenting voice would exactly be of service to our readers.

• Sent on 26 Oct 2009

You can't like something without being seen as a fanboy by someone. To me as long as you have a valid point and have either done research or have used the other products then your not a fanboy to use the product. To me a fanboy is someone who just says a product is better because they like it and have no way to truly justify their argument. They tend to use only that company's products and nothing anyone can say will get them to even give a product by another company a chance. It's a proven fact a MAC is easier to hack. It's also obvious that the only reason a MAC is safer is because so few use it. An easier to hack OS with the majority of users means a bigger security risk. That's just common sense. So yeah I'm not gonna go with an OS that will get more and more insecure the more users that use it, specially since very few companies make AntiVirus products because Apple has these fools believing MACs are flawless. Maybe if Apple would be honest with their users, and companies would make more security software for MACs. I'd give MACs more of a chance. I test a lot of software so Linux wouldn't work for me since installing software not in their little installer is a hassle compared to Windows. Hell I tend to test more software in a month that there are reviews by all Softonic editors combined in a month. I have to have the best of the best so yes I test a lot of products so I can keep up with the best products. And only Windows can truly cater to me for that. You will never see me stick with a company just cause of the name. I don't use all MS products, I don't use all Apple products and I don't use all Mozilla products but yes I use Windows as my OS, and I have an iPod Touch as my mp3 player and I do use Firefox as my browser. Shoot me for liking the best products. But I will always be able to give a justification of why the product is the best. Not just say it is cause I like it. So my thing is like what you like but don't argue about something without either doing research or using the competitor's product first. Just saying something is better because you like it isn't really saying much other than your some narrow minded idiot who can't think for themselves.

• Sent on 26 Oct 2009

@Matt - It's 'Mac' not 'MAC'. 'MAC' stands for 'Media Access Control'. Actually, OS X is inherently more secure than Windows. This is because its basic architecture is less complex and therefore less prone to error or hacking. What I believe you're referring to when you say "It’s a proven fact a MAC is easier to hack" is the annual event at which hackers attempt to execute malicious code on various computer systems. The Mac was 'hacked' quicker for two years running. But what does that tell us? Actually, it tells us that the 'hacker' in question knew about a vulnerability in the Mac OS which he then exploited to win a contest. In order to execute the malicious code, a link had to be clicked on in a browser - this isn't actually hacking at all. It's tricking a user into executing code. As you know, Mac OS is based on Unix and Unix is one of the foundation stones of the Internet. If Unix was so easy to hack, it would be done regularly and the Internet would be in disastrous shape. Actually, this never happens because Windows is the easier OS to hack. With its closed codebase and awfully inefficient architecture, Windows has numerous security holes that are routinely exploited. More information about the relative security of Windows and Unix based operating systems: http://www.commercialventvac.com/~jeffs/WindowsVsLinuxSecurity.html#mozTocId768658 http://morph3us.org/blog/archives/52-Why-Windows-is-less-secure-than-GNULinux.html - none of which is to say that Unix is perfect and that Windows shouldn't be used by anyone. It's just that this commonly misunderstood and oft repeated myth about Macs 'being hacked more easily' gets my goat. Remember: very few Mac viruses have ever been found in the wild.

• Sent on 26 Oct 2009

[...] 7 reasons not to upgrade to Windows 7 (onsoftware.en.softonic.com) [...]

• Sent on 26 Oct 2009

Matt said: "Linux is for hackers and tech geeks, normal users will be lost." Excuse me, but that is such an old view of Linux. You'd be surprised to see how EASY to install and use the latest versions of Linux are. My sister-in-law, who is the least computer-savvy person I've ever met in my whole life, had serious problems with her laptop (Windows XP) and I decided to install Ubuntu on it. She's been a happy Ubuntu user since then and doesn't miss Windows at all. In fact, she says she finds Ubuntu easier to use than Windows...

• Sent on 26 Oct 2009

Thanks everyone for your comments on this. Just to add to what Tom and Elena have said, I'll briefly address some of the points issued directly at me: Maybe it should have been made clear that I wrote this post in collaboration with another Softonic editor on our Spanish platform. Some of the points are therefore not entirely my own but we often work like this on big releases such as Windows 7 in order to try and write content with the broadest range of opinion. Secondly, as Tom points out, I still think that the general claim of each point is a valid reason for not upgrading. If some of the details are wrong however, then I and my co-editor hold our hands-up. It seems however that in most of the points raised here (such as the XP compatibility function) the problem has been one of clarity and maybe we have been guilty of not being more accurate or clear enough on certain points. @Jonathan, your point about me listing the prices in Euros and Dollars is an error of consistency on our part. I apologize for this and have now changed them all to dollars. Thanks for highlighting this and I guarantee you it was not an attempt at "pricing chicanery".

• Sent on 26 Oct 2009

I think the biggest reason not to upgrade to windows 7 is despite the hype projected by the media outlets, installing a new OS on an old and outdated machine is NOT some how going to miraculously turn it into a new one, not to mention once you've opened the package you can't return it. I have an older system with an AMD Athlon64 4000+(939) 1GB RAM, 160 GB HDD (SATA RAID-0), and Radeon 9600 XT 256MB, and while I have been running the final beta for some time now, when the trial ends, I'll be switching to something else due to some driver unavailability and performance issues. Its inconceivable to expect manufacturers to continue supporting every piece of hardware forever, and there are new, low-end laptops that will run circles around my aging desktop machine.

• Sent on 30 Oct 2009

Good that Tom set Matt straight, if Matt is not a fanboy, he sure is a Mac hater a lot of what he said was just incorrect, for a start the first Virus in the wild was not on a Mac, it was on Apple Dos, not the same, and so far removed from the Unix systems Mac is based on now. To hate on the mac you must feel really insecure about windows, to claim windows is the most popular system is misleading, to claim the most widely used would be fact. So before you acuse others of not getting their facts straight and acting like an arse (English spelling) get yours correct first and grow up!! As for windows 7 I'm sure its better than previous versions and people have to use there own judgement after reading more than one article to decide if its what they want, i'm sure like most people they will just end up with 7 after they purchase a new machine, and their decision will be based on nothing to do with windows but how much their PC costs and value for money etc.

• Sent on 01 Nov 2009

security through obscurity != more secure OS

• Sent on 04 Dec 2009

Wow! I can't believe all these comments. Grip, boast, bitch, blame, and whine. Some have shown that they know something, Some have shown they know nothing, but; Everyone knows that Fisher-Price makes the best operating systems and PC's.

• Sent on 24 Feb 2010

Unless you are buying a new PC, I don't see why you have to shell out $200 or more to get Windows 7, not to mention purchasing upgraded applications if old versions don't work.

• Sent on 09 Mar 2010

i am doing an assignment on major criticism about window 7, i,ve read some of the comment and i can summarize the only reason for not upgrading to w7 is like what (Leon comment 30 october). can anyone help me what else is there to know about w7

• Sent on 28 Mar 2010

Sorry I just run into this article and couldn't help but comment regarding the first post that "Windows 7 rapes XP on both speed and looks". I think he should try installing Windows 7 on the machine running XP and see if it really does outperforms it when it comes to speed...

• Sent on 06 Apr 2010

Haha what a bunch off fags if u want it then get it if u dont then dont get it. there $hits done.

• Sent on 22 Jul 2010

Windows7 runs way better than previous MS OS's but compatibility is a pain. I still use win7 for most but it sucks that I have to duel boot in order to run some software.

• Sent on 13 Sep 2010

Dear David Anderson: I was an IT Tech for kraft Canada for 5 years. I know for a fact that it's people like you that have no clue on the operation of computer that has Macro Sucks ruling the world. Adobe photoshop does not run full program plugins with windows 7 Need for speed video game has issues with windows 7 not XP The problem is the filing of the system files. HP printers that run perfect on windows XP don't on windows 7 It's a long list. My friends at Kraft have said the same thing it's causing problems. Just look at it's problems with dual indexing. If you can figure out how to go into explorer take a look in there at all the junk. It is a new way of running programs designed to make it unique to Macro Sucks to try and save their company. Learn something before you shoot your mouth off. For one it needs more memory to run. Stupid things like the pretty bar when it's scanning. The commercials that says it can now do things that I have been doing with laptops since windows 2000 Tape your mouth shut and stop polluting the world with your garbage Mr. Anderson. When you actually start doing real work on your computer instead of watching movies on it then you will learn for yourself.

• Sent on 14 Oct 2010

I love both Windows and Linux. Excuse me, But I stopped reading this garbage the minute I came across this phrase "it’s still based on the same old vulnerable NT kernel that Windows 3.1x"

This is nonsense. Windows NT was a whole newly-designed OS which is so obvious to anyone experienced it. Just to name several differences from 3.11:

1. NTFS - full file security.

2. A program can't crash another. If a program is a user-mode program (not device, service) chances that it interferes with other programs as same as in linux.

3. System policy.

• Sent on 01 Oct 2011