InfoWorld Home / Windows / Enterprise Desktop / Windows 7's real killer feature
November 03, 2009

Windows 7's real killer feature

What gives Windows 7 a strong future is not what you're thinking

| Print | 53 comments|
126 Recommendations

Everyone loves a killer feature: that must-have capability or technology that prompts you to plunk down your hard-earned cash in an effort to upgrade your computing experience.

In the case of Windows, there have been precious few versions that included a truly killer feature. Windows 3.1 was a killer version because it allowed PCs to finally break (or at least reduce the impact of) the dreaded 640K barrier. Windows NT was a killer version (at least for power users) because it introduced the concepts of client/server security and true, hardware-based memory protection to the environment.

[ How to choose between 32-bit Windows 7 and 64-bit Windows 7. | Get InfoWorld's 21-page hands-on look at the new version of Windows, from InfoWorld’s editors and contributors. | Find out what's new, what's wrong, and what's good about Windows 7 in InfoWorld's "Windows 7: The essential guide." ]

Windows XP was a killer version because it bridged the gap between the consumer (Windows 9x) and business (Windows NT) computing spaces. And though generally considered a flop, Vista was a killer version in that it forced the Windows ecosystem to evolve beyond the Windows XP paradigm and thus paved the way for Windows 7.

Which brings me to my main point: Windows 7 is a killer version -- but not for the reasons you think. It's not because it fixes Vista's many faults -- it doesn't. Rather, it glosses them over with fresh paint and behavioral tricks.

It's also not because of the new UI. Although I'm a huge fan of the new task-bar-driven interface, much of the underlying concept is merely a rip-off of the Mac's aging dock metaphor. And it's not because Windows 7 is somehow lighter than Vista -- testing shows it takes up about the same amount of RAM when executing an identical workload.

Related Content...

White Paper

D2D Virtual Tape Library Replication Primer

This whitepaper explains the terminology and concepts behind Data Replication technologies and establishes some sizing rules through worked examples. Learn the new paradigm in disaster tolerance—protect data anywhere.

Download now »

White Paper

An Alternative to Virtualization for Datacenter Cost Savings

Server virtualization is a popular option for dealing with mounting datacenter costs. Another equally promising approach is the use of an Application Delivery Controller. Citrix NetScaler provides a low-cost way for organizations to reduce their server count and accrue cost savings from a reduction in space, cooling, power and personnel.

Download now »

White Paper

Why Your Firewall, VPN, and IEEE 802.11i Aren't Enough to Protect Your Network

The emergence of WLANs has created a new breed of security threats to enterprise networks.

Included in HP ProCurve WLAN solutions is security technology that alleviates threats from WLANs through:
* Monitoring wireless activity inside and out of the enterprise
* Classifying WLAN transmissions into harmful and harmless
* Preventing transmissions that pose a security threat to the enterprise network
* Locating participating devices for physical remediation

Download now »

White Paper

Bringing the Edge to the Data Center

Effectively address data protection challenges, implementing solutions that help store and protect business–critical data while cutting costs and improving efficiency and reliability.

Download now »
49 of 53 comments
Sign In or Register to comment
mreem 3-Nov-09 6:04am
1 reply
So comes the question: With Win 7's magical handling of threads and cores, do I want to run Win 7 as a VM under Linux, or do I want to run Linux as a VM under Win 7? On the desktop, of course.
snookie 8-Nov-09 6:39pm
Is that a serious question? Because the answer is really obvious.
TEAMSWITCHER 3-Nov-09 8:00am
1 reply
This was the same killer feature introduced in Snow Leopard. In Snow Leopard the UI wasn't the main focus of the upgrade, but there were several under-the-hood changes to better utilize modern hardware (multi-core and 64-bit). I guess both Microsoft and Apple have to adapt their OS's to the ever-changing computer hardware landscape.
graya 3-Nov-09 12:46pm
2 replies
That was a feature but it still has to boot up in 32bit not gaining everything. Snow Leopard still need to get that in order for everything to be able to operate in full 64. Also if OS have found a way to go 128bit it won't be the OS that have to keep up with the hardware.
Kernos 4-Nov-09 7:25am
Snow Leopard does not HAVE to start up into the 32-bit kernel, that is only the default for now, for compatibility reasons. I often work in the 64-bit kernel (hold the 6 and 4 keys while booting or use a free preferencepane SixtyfourSwitcher). Also, IME, software lags hardware by years and never catches up.
snookie 8-Nov-09 6:42pm
Only part of it boots into 32 bit, the rest is 64-bit, and it doesn't lose anything. Macs have been able to address large amounts of memory for a long time and have been partly 64-bit for some time as well. They also did not have the hardware/driver/ app issues that 64 bit Windows has had for so long because of they way Apple chose to integrate 64-bitness into the OS over a period of time.
bradmo 3-Nov-09 8:00am
1 reply
I give up--what's the real killer feature for Windows 7 ? Unless I'm missing something, all you've told is what the killer feature is *not*.
Haydn 3-Nov-09 10:37am
2 replies
I agree. Randal said that on an 8 core machine, Windows 7 is only 250% faster than on a 1 core machine. It should have been ~700% faster. Linux, Mac OS, and other Unix-based OSes scale much better than that! :-)
chino 3-Nov-09 10:52am

Read that again more carefully. He said Win7 is 250% faster than XP on the same machine, not that Win7 is 250% faster on an 8-core than a 1-core....

Gray_Hair 3-Nov-09 11:06am
2 replies

Oh no no no, dear child. As much as it pains me to have to say it, RCK has this one nailed. Thread management IS the killer improvement in VISTA SP3 (I'm sorry W7 is a sham). With NO Applications written as parallel applications and application domains that resist parallization, 250% improvement is phenomenal! Your faith in the Unix stack is misplaced, with the all IO is a stream paradigm, Unix has exactly the same issues. Massive scalability on parallel problems comes with clustering not SMP.

pjrobar 3-Nov-09 9:43pm
1 reply
With NO Applications written as parallel applications and application domains that resist parallization, 250% improvement is phenomenal! RCK doesn't claim this speed up for apps that don't support or that aren't amenable to SMP solutions. What he actually said is that Windows Vista and 7 are better at "complex, multiprocess, multithreaded workloads" and specifically said that the 250% improvement was for a "multiprocess workflow". In other word's Windows is finally getting a little of the SMP capabilites that UNIX OSes like Sun's Solaris have had for years. Also, if you're really as experienced as you claim to be, you should know that some problems are best solved with large scale SMP solutions and others clustering. You choose the solution that best fits your problem and budget. Fortunately Solaris excels at both.
Gray_Hair 4-Nov-09 7:19am

Perhaps I said poorly what I was trying to get across, but when I read what you wrote, it sounded to me, like you agreed with what I meant. You are dead on about different solutions fitting different problems. I just have not found a class of problems Windows fits well, but I am impressed with the improvement in performance VSP3 provides on a mixed load of Windows applications. Human bounded interactive environments are challenging to fit into a parallel paradigm.

I was also gratified you mentioned Solaris. I agree it IS the standard with which to compare 'NIXs. Not only does it's clustering and SMP stand out, but it's virtualization features and amazing files systems support. Sun fanboy I am. But I maintain, that UNIX as a specification, has a fundamental flaw in the "all IO is a stream" concept. This is the point. Parallel processing, at its most efficient, will have parallel IO. Like you said, fit the solution to the problem.

snookie 8-Nov-09 6:44pm
Hah! Everything you said there is wrong. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. 250% improvement. Get real. Not happening.
andythegreat1@gmail.com 3-Nov-09 8:51am
1 reply
that just means 1 thing, Windows 7 will crash faster and more efficently than ever before, I cant wait its just going to turn into another Vista disaster
nitrobob 3-Nov-09 11:16am
1 reply
Andy, Have you actually tested Windows 7 in any of its various forms and on various types of systems? I have not deployed Vista for any of my clients for many reasons, all of which relate solely to business considerations. I have never felt that Vista was appropriate for my clients and I have made my feelings well known in the SMB community. I have, however, taken the time to test both the beta version and the release candidate of Windows 7 in both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions on desktop and notebook computers of varying hardware strengths from modest to robust. I repeated this process once the release candidate was made available to Microsoft partners ahead of the release to the general public and I added an HP Mini 1101 to the mix for good measure. In each case, the installation time was around eighteen minutes, by far the fastest and easiest base installation of Windows that I have seen through all of its iterations. Furthermore, drivers have not posed an issue for me and I have some hardware that most consumers would never own. I also went to far as to install a Sprint PCMCIA data card on several notebook configurations that Sprint said could not be installed under Windows 7. The bottom line with all of these tests has been exceptionally smooth performance with not a single blue screen. I was really blown away by the robust performance that I have experienced on the HP Mini with an Atom processor and 2 GB of RAM. I am one of Microsoft's biggest critics when it does something wrong, but I have to say that I will not hesitate to install Windows 7 for a client so long as their line-of-business application can function properly under the OS or the Windows XP virtual environment. I have been very pleased with what I have seen in my tests and I am not easy to please by any stretch of the imagination. I can't tell you that you should jump into the fray and install Windows 7. I can only say that I did not let my distaste for Vista close my mind to the possibility that Windows 7 could be a worthy upgrade for my clients. Perhaps this will open your mind a bit. You never know what you might discover when you open yourself to the possibilities that exist out there.
danmar 3-Nov-09 11:31am
1 reply
Thank you. Your post was more useful than Randall's article! :)
maadamo 13-Nov-09 4:25am
Agreed. The author (and commenter) should be on Fox News or MSNBC. Does not report the facts. Kennedy contradicts himself in the article. He states that Win7 uses the same memory as Vista, with the tone that this is a bad thing...Yet Win7 is much more scalable than vista I ran Vista for 2 years on an old single core desktop with 768M ram (yes less than 1GB). It work very well only upgraded when the motherboard died due to power supply issue. Kennedy is an idiot...or perhaps he is paid by the amount of traffic his articles generate and is therefore purposely controversial. In either case, I do not trust his opinion on anything windows related.
accolorado 3-Nov-09 8:53am
1 reply
"And though generally considered a flop, Vista was a killer version in that it forced the Windows ecosystem to evolve beyond the Windows XP". Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. You state that a flop is a killer version just because it moved users from an old to a newer version of the OS! Well, I'm sure if you are selling the OS, that is a killer feature because it requires user to spend money, but, in fact, it was a flop, and therefore a waste of money. At that point I had to register on this site so that I can post a comment and call you on it. If you consider that to be a killer feature, that clearly calls into question your opinion on what other "killer features" are. Sound like you are typing just to fill in a huge empty space... I'm still sticking to XP.
andythegreat1@gmail.com 3-Nov-09 8:55am
1 reply
You know, it says quite a bit about a product when its faithful users are not willing to "upgrade" to the new version. best thing Ive ever done computer wise is move to a macbook. at least I can do work with out any problems....
graya 3-Nov-09 12:54pm
3 replies
The only reason why you moved to a macbook is because you needed to learn how to use a computer. I am guessing that you don't know how to run linux, or unix. And windows is too complex for you. I have had to support everything over they years and I probably can take down you mac quicker then I can a windows machine and I know all the in's on one. Sorry Andy you really need to learn everything and try everything before you close you mind. And most of all you have to understand how a comptuer work, because it seems like you don't konw much.
Elfish 3-Nov-09 6:07pm
I agree with the part that Linux is now easier to use than Windows. Runs better too.
andythegreat1@gmail.com 4-Nov-09 12:02pm
No brother, I've just had more than one bad experience with windows in the past, starting with windows XP, Windows to me is now the abusive ex that claims they will change. God willing I'll never have to bring myself to using them again, Windows 7 may be the best OS ever, with absolutely no hiccups or errors, but I will not leave Apple, I've had nothing but a great time using their products, and their willing to stand behind them.
snookie 8-Nov-09 6:46pm
Thats a silly, silly, comment from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about but likes to pretend like they do.
win4notcustomers 3-Nov-09 10:00am
1 reply
I was very disappointed when I explored the file structure of Windows 7 and the registry. It is Vista under the covers with some new user interfaces. It will be just as difficult and expensive for IT departments as well as 99.9% of most current XP users to move to Windows 7 as is Vista. So it runs a little faster, it's the user learning curve that is ridiculous. You would think by now they could make an OS that is intuitive to use. After 20 years of supporting windows OS versions, this is going to be a nightmare for customers who have to upgrade. I like the looks, but the confusion over how to upgrade it, the steep learning curve and the many issues with applications and drivers no longer working will have a lot of PC's sitting unuseable as owners try to figure out what went wrong and the bill to get them running will be significant. ALready run into driver issue from Linksys where they have no plans to upgrade their Wireless print server to support 64 bit WIndows 7 or 32 bit. May work under 32 bit, but for users this is going to be like gambling and Microsoft and others are holding all of the cards... odds are unfortunately customers of all types lose. Just for reality sake, we all know that eventually an OS has to change to support advances in technology, but the OS has to be intuitive to use by a grandmother.
graya 3-Nov-09 1:02pm
So what it is a learning curve. I have deployed it and it has been very easy people didn't have a choice. They already know how so it is better than you think. Also you must really not understand how to install drivers. I can't stop laughing linksys has drivers just not on there site. Linksys doesn't make the wireless hardware and the company that does will have the drivers for it. Linksys only packages it up for the end use and adds there software for it. Which you won't want because it is extra junk that isn't needed. I hope in future you spend more then 10 seconds looking at an issue and then give up. Drivers are very easy part of setup, it is even hard for me to belive that you have been supporting windows for 20 years if you are having troubles.
TheBigCheese 3-Nov-09 10:35am
1 reply
So the killer feature is the exact same killer feature of all previous versions: if you get the very latest and most expensive hardware, it will run apps better than the previous versions on the same hardware. It was either the ability to take advantage of more memory, newer CPU's or more processors. This means, I will be happy with Windows 7 if I invest several thousands in a top of the line box. Well my current machine is the first one I've bought (3 years ago) that was cutting edge top-of-the-line. AFter the three years experience, I think I will go back to bottom fishing and just getting a newer machine every years or two. At this point, I will not be able to afford a $4K machine for at least two years so the ability to take better advantage of 8 cores is of no concern. I am guessing that maybe 1-2% of the PC owners are in a position to take advantage of the scalability at this point and it will be at least 2-3 years before this kinf of machine becomes main-stream affordable.
graya 3-Nov-09 1:11pm
You have good points, and I agree that he should have done it on a cheaper machine even on 3 year old machine. I have done test on xp machines came out between 3 and 5 years ago and I have done test on new ones to 3 years ago. Each model I compared xp to vista to 7. I also have ran Linux on them to see how they are also. 7 was faster, and less power usage among other things I was impressed. I do recommend more than a gig of ram. But it performed better there are many reason for this I could go in to the architecture of the OS. Even on a single core AMD Sempron with 2 gigs of ram out performed XP. I would say if you have a machine with 2 gig try it you will be surprised.
opsys 3-Nov-09 10:40am
3 replies
The majority of PC users do not need the power of Multi-core processors or Multi Gigabyte Ram, Most users run Office productivity applications, or simply use a web based application. Big hardware in the desktop is not needed anymore. With budgets shrinking and the economy as it is, it would be difficult to justify spending on new hardware for the desktop when that money can be better spent in the Data center.
Regaug 3-Nov-09 12:03pm
1 reply
Opsys is right: Unless you are a game tester or a media developer, "big hardware" is becoming less and less necessary with an increasing dependence on the Web. All you really need is a thin client with a fast network interface.
graya 3-Nov-09 1:17pm
You and Opsys have a point, but you have to relize the more stuff goes on the web the more hardware you will need. I am not saying you need quad core 8 gigs of ram, you will need certain hardware to get the job done. GPU are becoming more of a need. Things are changes and hardware changes with it or drives it. You many not need the best stuff for what you want to do. But you will need to consider that not all web stuff is thin some things take a bit to process. Network interface isn't everything.
DaveLindhout 3-Nov-09 4:07pm
I'm with you as well, opsys. For the first time in the history of the microprocessor, user needs have been satiated. The data centers will continue to consume all the resources available, but the desktop computer for the masses is just fine. 64-bit, 2 cores running at 2GHz, with 4GB of memory, will take care of most peoples needs

Servers are another story. It's a good thing that Vista/7 shares a lot with Server 2008, because that's where multi-core and lots of memory will pay off. Any extraordinary needs a user might have, can be performed on a server in the cloud. That is, assuming a decent network connection, right Regaug?

snookie 8-Nov-09 6:38pm
What that sort of comment fails to realize is that more powerful procs/cores and more of them will allow for new apps that are currently not possible now. Its the same thing as Gates saying computers will never need more than 640k. Its ok for what we have now so why would you need anything better?
Jeff_Wallace 3-Nov-09 11:48am
What has gone unmentioned is that Win 7 is only 32-bit, but has a true 64-bit operating system version with a RAM capacity much greater (a terabyte, I think) than 32-bit's effective 3 gigs -- and Office 2010 will have a 64 bit version as well.
kingy 3-Nov-09 11:53am
I have read some comments about os's. I started using w3.1 and migrated to w2k. The os was built on nt tech. Vista, and Xp was built on NT. My granddaughter like a certain game that was compatible with XP and Vista. She playing that game on w2k 32 bit platform. I said that to say this, I tried XP and didn't like it. I have also uninstalled XP and Vista for clients and reinstalled w2k and they are happy. At one time microsoft stop supporting w2k and now they are. I also have w2k running on a 64 bit platform computer. And the cost is nothing to continue to use w2k. Of course, that is my opinion only and can be backed up with my continued use of that OS. No I do not wish to try windows 7.
Regaug 3-Nov-09 12:00pm
2 replies
I always felt that Windows XP's "killer feature" was that TCP/IP networking finally worked. Windows 98 and ME's network stack was junk.
DaveN 3-Nov-09 12:23pm
I don't disagree, but I still remember the joy of not having to find, download, install, and configure a separate Winsock app. It was certainly a game changing event when mom and pop didnt' have to go through a bunch of pain just to connect to the Internet. Randall - your recent posts about Win7 have been interesting and informative, whether people agree with your take on things or not. Thanks.
snookie 8-Nov-09 6:48pm
So as XP's. It fails to work quite often and the only fix is a restart or repairing the network stack. Windows only finally got a decent stack when they tool the BSD network stack.
garyoa1 3-Nov-09 12:25pm
Well, I haven't really seen it yet but I'm absolutely fascinated by the touting of the new taskbar being more like the mac. (which I absolutely detest) (yes I have an imac and hate it with a passion) Outside of the mac ridiculously expanding when you mouse over it, that feature has been in windows since win2k. If you know where to look. Looks like they just brought it out into the open. The more these things start to look like a mac, the more I'm considering looking into linux.
shamunda 3-Nov-09 1:07pm
1 reply
Well I'll chime in like I always do with words. First, to all those that are dispappointed to find the Windows 7 is much improved Vista - MS has been saying that the core engine is still Vista every step of the way. So if you're not going to keep up with the technical write-ups perhaps you shouldn't be making any comments. In my opinion for an all purpose portable OS, and by that I mean I can pretty much put it on any system I want. I don't need a dumbed down os/platform which I need to spend $$$$ simply to surf or use the word processor. Yet I also don't want an os where in order to simply play a DVD you have to manually move libdvdcss into /usr/lib/... Or trying to decide should I download the KDE or Gnome version, or, after installing a package going on an all out hunt to find out how the hell to launch it. No thanks, Vista may have had it's weaknesses for some, but for me it worked, and Windows 7 works across the board on everything I have thus far installed it on. No sir, haven't had issues (yet), however at this very moment I'm looking at my linux box asking in a circular loop if i want to upgrade because update script process wasn't smart enough to kill the gui and restart it, go figure. Sticking with MS.
graya 3-Nov-09 1:23pm
Thanks for don't your homework. People need to read and understand what you have said.
evanst 3-Nov-09 3:18pm
Today, the vast majority of users in the vast majority of companies will get very little if any ROI on anything beyond what a mainstream 2005 PC with Win XP & Office 2003 can offer. The most compelling argument for large scale “upgrading” to Win 7 right now is: IT department job security. As the number of users with a legitimate need for the new OS grows (for whatever reason), a tipping point will be reached where a large scale upgrade will sufficiently improve the speed, consistency and quality of support to justify moving all or most users. In our company, where our existence depends on our ability to “do computing” very efficiently, I expect that tipping point will be reached late in 2012. At home, I imagine some application support issue will force an upgrade from XP sometime between 2015 and 2020.
InnocentBystander 3-Nov-09 10:03pm
1 reply
Another nice piece, Rick, if you can back it up with data as you promise. I have been an early adopter of Windows since 3.0 and remember the pain, all the way up to Windows 95 where they got it right (mostly). When those early versions of Windows came out, they always demanded more capable hardware than most people had. The IT rags endlessly bitched about that, at least when they weren't pining for the C-prompt. But Microsoft placed its faith Moore's Law, and Windows succeeded and took root as Moore's Law was fulfilled. Remember that when Windows 3.0 came out, 19 years ago, a mid-range PC (16 MHz 386sx, 20 MB HD, 640K memory) cost about $2,000. That's $3,300 in current dollars. Today a pretty snappy PC costs about $600 (2.66 GHz quad-core CPU, 6 GB main memory, 750 GB hard disk, TV, etc)., or less than 20% of the older machine. And the newer box has 4X the CPU cores, 166X the speed, 37,500X the hard disk capacity, 9.375X the main memory, plus sound, wireless, Ethernet, hi-res graphics, TV, and other trimmings. Wow, can this be right? Did I do the math right??? Anyway, Moore's Law in action. Windows 7 is interesting because it runs fine on today's "average" machine, but (you say at least) it will catch fire as the new CPUs become standard fare. Microsoft still believes in Moore's law, obviously, but it's not depending on it any more.
snookie 8-Nov-09 6:48pm
Moores law has not applied for some time.
snookie 8-Nov-09 6:33pm
Kennedy apparently believes his reader are idiots. In his world up is down, let is right, black is white, and Windows 7 makes good use of hardware resources. In the real world Windows 7 is barely any better than other Windows at utilizing more memory and not any better at all in using more processors or cores. This has been shown many times in tests. The only thing Microsoft did different is expose more threads but with the same lousy scheduler that doesn't make much difference. Yes I know about the lock too. That doesn't mean much either. Do a test Randall instead of just saying what you would like people to believe. Tests of Linux and Snow Leopard in multi-tasking and utilization of memory and multiple cores show those OS's to be twice as efficient as Windows 7 in multi-tasking and dramatically better in making use of multiple procs or cores. That is before the optimizations that Grand Central will bring to both. Microsoft has nothing but some .NET vaporware that they talk about but don't show that will be as good as Grand Central any day now. Same old Microsoft FUD. When you are mediocre the way out is to pretend like you have a secret plan to catch up and hope your customers don't defect. In all the years I have been reading Info World I have never seen a columnist who has been more wrong than you. Either you really know nothing about Windows or you are shilling for page views and ad space.
dogbert64 9-Nov-09 1:40pm
1 reply
Could someone explain to me why Windows STILL hasn't addressed the bloatware issue? I thought XP was going to fix some of this but MS seems to be dragging their feet on cleaning up Windows. Apple bit that bullet way back when they bought NeXT (or was it the other way around :) ) and rebuilt their core. MS should have made the same decision years ago. Instead they now have a code base that is difficult to maintain and requires major retrogression testing for each update. Manhours that could have gone into more productive work. Final Q - what about DLL Hell?
TechieXP 10-Nov-09 9:22am
DLL Hell? Where? MSFT chose this way for a reason. When doing simple tasks in a OS, a user should NECER have to openin a CLI windo...EVER. The CLI should be for administrative purposes only...thus UNIX in an IT environment...not a desktop one. Apple handle it very well...but if you want to run appz out side of Apple dominion...you yet again need to use Terminal. And what bloatware? MSFT has already removed several programs from Windows. You can restore them either from downloading them or usin ghte Features control panel. Think about what Windows has to tackle...it works with way more things than ANY OS...I don't care about compiling Linux to run on a router. A router isn't a computer. In many cases I hate MSFT is choosing to use Mac-like features or some found in Linux. MSFT should do their own thing. Problem is that is not what users want. Some comments I read above are so crazy they aren't worth commenting on. Your was just exceptionally crazy :-)
csclay 11-Nov-09 4:39pm

I bought a machine with Windows ME on it and tried to go back to W2000. Turns out the registry had changed with ME, and my box would not boot. So I bought XP and installed that. The box worked - I could boot up - but very slowly. I had to clear everything and start over. I decided there and then that I would try very hard not to ever buy another OS from Microsoft again, especially at their highway robbery prices.
Subsequently bought an iMac and wish I had gotten a Mac Book instead.
I haven't seen anything in any releases since XP that would make me want to upgrade. I can see that businesses would need to upgrade for support purposes, but, as an individual, I don't care to pay again for the "MS-Windows premium" on any computer I buy.

Mike Glenn 13-Nov-09 9:45am
"This scalability edge manifests itself in the form of better performance under complex, multiprocess, multithreaded workloads." Nice; that will be of interest to CAD/CAM/Engineering users and hardcore gamers. But we do word-processing, email, a database client, and the occasional web-browse. What's our business case? :(

Sign up to receive InfoWorld Resource Alerts

Subscribe to the Today's Headlines: First Look Newsletter

Find out what will be news for the day, with our first-thing-in-the-morning briefing.

©1994-2009 Infoworld, Inc.