Is Steve Ballmer really that ignorant?

With Steve Ballmer's recent announcement that Windows 7 is using the same code base as Vista and that it will be just an incremental upgrade with no changes to the UAC (security) model (it will still be a prompt fest that most will just turn off), will you upgrade?

What is known:

1. UAC remains
2. Disk killing auto restore points will remain enabled by default
3. Media player will not be a installed by default (deemed a performance issue)
4. Graphics performance requirements will increase for base interface
5. Driver protection checks a database for "problematic drivers" and prevents loading
6. Trusted Platform Module Services ("Trusted Computing" )
7. There will be as many versions as current Vista versions
8. Increased multi-CPU support (wasn't this already supposed to be in Vista?)

Clearly Microsoft have not been listening to consumers, apparently they don't care that their stock value has remained low for the past 5 years (investors), and they obviously don't visit Windows/PC related forums much to look at the current user base (Tom's for example; 386,385 threads on WinXP and only 15,987 on Vista - after 2 years the ratio between these numbers should have changed, it hasn't).

Items 5 and 6 should raise some serious end user flags.

False. Microsoft to improve Vista's problematic UAC in Windows 7

Of course, why would it not? UAC prevents applications from being installed and making changes to the system without user authorization, thus far proving 100% effective in detecting root-kits. Excessive UAC prompts were largely caused by applications failing to utilize the new standard user account model in Windows Vista, either because the application was designed prior to Windows Vista or the developer just didn't put the effort into minimizing UAC prompts. I think Microsoft could have made UAC slightly less paranoid until developers had more time to change the way their applications behave, but getting them to make those changes was absolutely needed.

There are only two ways to get developers to stop writing applications that assume administrator rights are required for everything; prevent the application from making certain changes to the system without user authorization, or prevent the application from functioning, period. I think any minimally intelligent person would agree that Microsoft chose the better approach.

As it was with Windows XP. System Restore is useless if disabled. It is positively trivial for an informed user to disable System Restore if they have their own backup and restore solution. It is not realistic to expect the average user to know System Restore must be manually enabled because a small number of incredibly lazy persons felt that three mouse clicks is too difficult for them to disable System Restore.

False. If Windows Media Player will no longer be installed by default, it will be for legal reasons related to anti-trust actions pending against Microsoft.

False. Graphics hardware feature set requirements will increase for the full featured interface. Desktop Window Manager (and Windows Aero) will require DX10 compliant hardware in Windows 7, compared to DX9 compliant hardware required in Vista. Graphics performance requirements will be on-par with Vista.

Wow, Windows 7 will prevent a known faulty driver from crashing your computer! Shame on Microsoft, it should just let Windows crash due to known faulty drivers, so that some people can just blame the crash on Microsoft.

Yes, support for which is being mandated by numerous governments on computers that will be deployed in various government departments or agencies, in addition to numerous corporations. Linux will have it soon enough as well (it already has limited support), or is guaranteed to have its large presence in government and enterprise segments around the world evaporate. There may be Communists hiding under your bed, too. Better go check...

So what? You don't have to buy them all. Unless your point is that you are paralyzed by having to make choices? Making choices is pretty much required of everyone who completes something called "childhood".

Its not "increased" multi-CPU support, its improved multi-core and multi-processor efficiency. Its kind of complicated, probably best that you just skip trying to grasp this one.

Really? By definition, "change" requires at least two points of reference. Can you provide the ratio for some historical point of reference? The Windows XP forum includes threads all the way back to July 10, 2001, just over seven years. The Vista forum only goes back to Sept. 4, 2006, just over two years.

THG Forums archive contains USENET threads that were imported into the forum database. AFAIK, THG Forums stopped importing USENET content in mid-2006. Which means that Windows XP forum statistics may contain two or three times as many imported USENET threads than those originating here, while Vista forum statistics are strictly threads originating here.

However ignorant Ballmer is, the ignorance you've shown here makes Ballmer a certified genius by comparison.

Wow. I couldn't have said it any better myself.

It still amazes me that people bitch and moan about how "broken" Windows is... and yet when MS actually fixes something, they bitch and moan about the fix. Case in point = "point" #5. MS clearly has done this to increase stability and decrease tech support issues... it's something that should have been done long ago. Now that it's finally being implemented, someone has to whine about it. Bad drivers are quite possibly the #1 issue when it comes to stability in Windows... but everyone likes to put the blame on MS. Now, that excuse will be taken away... perhaps this is what has the OP so upset?

System restore is also great even if you do have another backup system in place. Sometimes you screw something up without doing major damage, but you're still getting error messages. It's much simpler to use a restore point than do a full restore from backup.

More versions = better choice. You don't have to buy a version of Windows that has a lot of features you don't want or need. If there were just two versions, people would complain about the price of each version and claim there's just too much crap in there that they didn't want and therefore shouldn't have to pay for. So, MS accomodates those complaints by offering more versions each with a different set of features. Why this is such a problem for you, I'll never fathom.

The amount of FUD never ceases to amaze me.

Prove to me that bad drivers is the #1 issue for stability? WHQL drivers are "approved" by Microsoft, yet consumer PC's still crash. Oops! If you look into stability problems (which you obviously haven't) it is usually BIOS settings, out of date BIOS (which BTW will NOT be covered in this new "driver database" ), overclocking issues, RAM issues, and/or Power Supply issues, motherboard issues -- welcome to the open ended PC, it will always be this way.

Because Microsoft blame bad drivers for it's stability problems is like asking the wolf where are all the sheep are.

Also, you didn't say what happens when you need to install a LAN driver and don't have access to this "database of good drivers"? You also don't say anything about what happens if this database goes down for whatever reason, then what? Hunderds of thousands of people can't install drivers til it comes back to life? This is good?

Again, you completely missed what I said about Restore Points. They are automatically enabled and this causes huge disk I/O overhead. Restore points SHOULD NOT and DO NOT need to be active 24/7, they only need to happen when system configuration changes. It's just another example of a good concept, but bad implementation.

More versions has nothing to do with what people want, it's marketing. People have time and time again asked for ONE version.

Zoron you've said nothing better, you've just agreed with the same crippled logic presented by tscenter.

With the way Microsoft are continuing with their operating systems it's market share will dwindle to nothing along with their stock which has been low for the past 5 years.

9. is one of many examples, there is plenty more evidence that Vista is not being used by many -- such as web site that check your OS version, Vista is still <5% and that number is NOT increasing as one would expect it to.

Nothing. Too bad "minor changes" is quite different from "no changes".

There have been no real world exploits or attacks based on any alleged hacks of UAC, at least none that are successful. A digital code-signing certificate costs less than $500 annually, which even I could afford if I really wanted it. But a digital certificate is not required to reduce UAC intervention. e.g. properly utilize auto-elevate and privilege inheritance features for installer executables and application manifests, stop using old versions of InstallShield, Wise, Inno, NSIS, or other installer solutions that aren't properly supporting these features, and refrain from writing to protected areas when it is either not necessary or the same objective can be accomplished through alternative approaches

Actually the figure for the general Vista-using population at large is around 15% running with UAC disabled. Only if you narrow the spectrum to more advanced or computer savvy users, such as those responding to surveys on computer and IT related websites, does the percentage exceed 20% running with UAC disabled. Microsoft isn't really concerned about the 20% of computer users who are advanced or savvy enough to know UAC can be disabled. It is the other 80% of computer users who are most vulnerable to security risks because they have minimal computer knowledge or savvy. You know the ones, they will have five different AOL installations co-existing on the same computer because they don't uninstall older application versions, or even know they should.

We agree, it is the responsibility of the OS to restrict the behavior of applications written by careless or indifferent developers, preventing unfettered and unchecked 'adjustment' of core OS components and system settings. And that is precisely what Microsoft is doing. You can't have it both ways.

Installing applications and updates IS the most compelling reason to have System Restore. If System Restore shouldn't create restore points prior to changes made by applications and updates, what the hell good is it?

One large organization? I suppose you could consider at least two dozen countries, several thousand corporations, and a few hundred universities "one large organization". It would smack of the same paranoia exhibited by those who rant about sinister things like the "New World Order" and "Illuminati", but you're free to sound as crazy as you want. I have seen nothing that would remotely suggest users with full admin rights (e.g. the owner) would be prevented from disabling the TPM or any related service, perhaps even uninstalling it.

Windows 7 may not have any compatibility UI mode for DX9 hardware. I can't see ATI or NVIDIA continuing to support DX9 parts for another four or five years. That would have to be some kind of record for the longest driver support cycle ever. So yeah, Windows 7 requiring DX10 hardware at a minimum would make ATI and NVIDIA very happy.

Its a black list, not a white list. Only drivers with known serious dysfunction will be on it.

Actually, the Windows XP thread statistics massively increased in 2005, because of the USENET discussion threads that were imported. As I said, THG Forums stopped importing USENET discussion threads in 2006, before the Vista forum existed. What this means is, Windows XP forum statistics were massively inflated by external USENET discussions, while Vista statistics reflect strictly internal discussions. Apples to oranges.

You have still not provided a stitch of support for these alleged "ratios". Its not enough to say "ratio" but prove absolutely nothing other than you can spell "ratio". I will take the fact that you have not provided any support for these alleged "ratios" to mean you are just fabricating statements.