Slashdot Mirror
Michael Dell Says Windows 7 Will Make You Love PCs
ruphus13 writes "In a recent talk at the Churchill Club, Michael Dell addressed several topics, including the fact that Windows 7 is poised to take advantage of the upgrade cycle. Dell has always been a strong MS OEM ally and it is now hoping to cash in again from the impending upgrades. From the post: 'Dell made plain several times that he sees the installed base of technology as very old, and sees a coming "refresh cycle" for which he has high hopes. "The latest generation of chips from Intel is strong, particularly Nehalem," he said, adding, "and Windows 7 is on its way." (The operating system arrives Oct. 22nd, although Microsoft's large-volume licensees are already getting it.) He pointed out that many business are running Windows XP, which is eight years old. "I've been using Windows 7 for a long time now," he said, "and if you get the latest processor technology and Office 2010 with it, you will love your PC again. It's a dramatic improvement."'"
I've been using Windows 7 for a long time now, and if you get the latest processor technology and Office 2010 with it, you will love your PC again. It's a dramatic improvement.
Microsoft Windows 7 Professional Full - Retail: $299.99
Cheapest Nehalem Processor: $279.99
(note, can't buy Office 2010 yet)
Latest Office 20xx: $399.95
Total: $979.93
So Michael Dell, the CEO of the company that is the largest dealer of PCs to businesses and individuals, suggests you opt for the extra grand in order to 'love your PC again.' You don't say. I would be shocked if anyone was willing to fork over more than $900 for an entire computer these days. How am I to differentiate this from any salesman saying, "Buy the most expensive one for the best experience."
My work here is dung.
Translation - Buy stuff from me. I won't sell you poison again, honest. You can trust me and my stuff is less bad than last time.
As various searches reveal that in 2007 he was using Ubuntu, the "long time now" must mean gosh, what, using Windows 7 a couple of years? Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "early release".
Seem disingenuous.
Dell needs a good quarter, folks. Those nasty guys on Wall Street will be all over them if they don't squeeze out a good quarter to make Dell look good against Acer. Or not.
And computer companies wonder why their credibility is so dubious.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
As various searches reveal that in 2007 he was using Ubuntu, the "long time now" must mean gosh, what, using Windows 7 a couple of years? Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "early release".
Seem disingenuous.
Dell needs a good quarter, folks. Those nasty guys on Wall Street will be all over them if they don't squeeze out a good quarter to make Dell look good against Acer. Or not.
And computer companies wonder why their credibility is so dubious.
Either way what Michael Dell says as the CEO of Dell doesn't reflect his personal opinion, just like any other CEO, or anybody working within management, your professional opinion can be in complete contrast to your personal opinion. What he's proposing (that everybody upgrade to Win7, and hopefully with that also buy new shiny Dell PCs) is something that will benefit his business, and he would be the worlds shittiest CEO if he didn't. So basically this means nothing other than the fact that Dell also wishes to make profit on Windows 7.
Also something noteworthy is that the life situation of Michael Dell, as a multibillionare, is very different from the vast majority; thus whatever Michael Dell chooses will most likely not reflect what's best for you as an average income consumer.
Even though the ape in us wants to try to mimic the decisions of the successful, it can sometimes be difficult to understand why mimicing isolated decisions is more likely to do you harm than good.
I am the lawn!
...if you get the latest processor technology and Office 2010 with it, you will love your PC again. It's a dramatic improvement.
Ok, I'm a graphic designer who often works with photoshop files that are 500 meg or larger (files in the 1 gig+ range are not uncommon at all). For me, having a fast processor, a lot of ram, and the other bells and whistles that go along with it will make a "dramatic improvement" because we're talking about a massive file and long processing times for each action I take. When you're using Office - you know, a word processing program, a spreadsheet program, and a presentation program - you shouldn't need the latest and greatest. Sorry, but I just feel that needing the latest and greatest so that you can "love your PC again" when all you're using is an office suite just might be a sign that the office suite is bloated well beyond what is required.
My two cents. They're Canadian cents so take 'em for what they're worth, eh.
“Its amazing that it takes Micro$oft 6 years to what the Linux, community can get done in 6 weeks”
I always wonder how this happen so fast as well, its like I woke up one day everybody had gone 64Bit. But one day at my local lug, Alan Cox was there and we got taking about 64Bit drivers and he said that when he was working at Red Hat the code for the Alpha port helped a lot.
Plus Linux has been in the 64bit space for a while it just commodity hardware caught up.
Microsoft are not know for being ahead of thing, there just playing catch up.
I take you point that FOSS did the transition better it just wasn’t as magical as you put it.
Nearly all of these "features" have been in both Linux and Mac OS X for years. Hell, intelligent processor scheduling was in BeOS way back in 1998. So you're going to start using Windows 7 because Microsoft is finally catching up on basic OS engineering? If they want to get $200 out of me they're going to need to try way harder. I can do at least as well as Windows for no money and way better for $129.
Or some marketing droid wrote that statement for him. I remember similar crap mouthed by various computer company CEO's about Vista.
Windows 7 is, fundamentally, just Vista SP2. There's a little less in the way of "you need to confirm access to continue" screen nagware, and the hardware requirements are about the same as Vista. The only reason it's not getting panned as a resource hog is that Vista only ran well on almost "bleeding edge" hardware, and 2.5 years later that's "hey it runs well on a couple year old sytem."
The more they promote W7, the more wary I become. Maybe MS thinks the problems with its products are not bugs, and shoddy design, but customer perception. Maybe they are trying to build a Steve Jobs reality distortion field sans Steve Jobs. Two problems: Balmer is not Steve Jobs, and Apple, in many cases, lives up to the hype.
photosMy Photostream
Really?
When you consider that way back in the 1980's, people were shelling out upwards of $2000 for a new computer, what makes you think it's so "shocking" that people would still pay over $1000 for a new system in today's dollars?
Although the market has been flooded with "entry level" systems starting as low as $300 or so, that doesn't mean everyone has decided there's no reason to spend more. And although I realize the cheap PCs have been great from a standpoint in getting more people on-board with using a computer at home, they've also resulted in lower standards across the board. I, for one, am tired of the garbage that passes for a power supply out there. You've got the same problem as cheap, imported car and home stereo equipment, where the wattage ratings mean nothing. I can remember when you could pull a power supply out of one of the original IBM AT machines and it might say something really low, by today's standards, like an 85 watt rating. Yet you could add a bunch of power splitters to the thing and hook it up to a FAR more modern system that needed at least a 250 watt power supply to run, and it would still power it! These days, you get power supplies with a 450 or 500 watt rating that conk out if they're asked to output more than about HALF of that rating!
I'm equally tired of the way manufacturers cut corners on things like cooling fans (cheap sleeve bearings, so the fan quits spinning after a year or two, risking destroying far more expensive components), or sourcing the cheapest motherboards they can find that have the ports and connectors they require. (Again, where's the real savings when your new machine gets flaky and starts refusing to power up half the time, risking all your important data?)
All of this (and shoddy software!) are reasons I've been "loving my PC" for years now by switching to higher-end Macs. Yep, they cost more.... a lot more in the case of the Mac Pro. But I've had practically NO headaches or hardware issues. (My first Macbook Pro portable did arrive DOA, but it was swapped immediately and its replacement worked great. Even there though, the things were shipping direct from a factory in China. Back when people were conditioned to pay more for computers, all the way around, these things would have still been assembled and QA tested here in the USA.)