Well said Cobra. I purchased Vista upgrade a few months after release, I used it for 2 months and went back to XP, deciding to wait for SP 1 to be released before using Vista. I have been planning for months to install Vista on a small partition and have yet to take the time to do so, which means I have a copy of Vista upgrade sitting in my desk that I have only used for 2 months (though it is my own fault). Anyway my point is I completely agree. Just because something had some problems does not entitle anyone to a free item of the next version.

Reminds me of the nVidia 8800 cards when they first came out. Partly due to Vista and partly due to driver bugs they did not function well in Vista. some jack-ass lawyer in California who ran right out and spent $1200 bucks to SLI 2 8800's threatened to file a lawsuit against nVidia. he had a webpage and was asking others to put there name in the suit. he was gonna screw nVidia because the cards were not yet fully compatible. Made me laugh so hard.

unfortunately I never heard if they actually filed suit and if so what came of it.

The point is just because something does not function correctly does entitle people to a free copy of the next version, nor does it entitle people to a wad of cash. The only thing poor function entitles people to is a refund (which we don't get on software) or a solution to the problem such as SP's that fix the bugs.

I do not feel one bit sorry for those who think they deserve a free copy of 7 because they were upset with Vista. Fact is EVERY OS has problems upon release. It will be the same with 7. If you have to run right out and buy it upon release and are to impatient to wait until it has been out for a while, research the issue and decide if you can deal with the bugs or the lack of functions etc... then you deseve to be upset because you made a POORLY UNEDUCATED purchase. When I bought Vista I knew full well the bugs etc... but decided to buy anyway as my research on the issue allowed me to decide that I could deal with the bugs. The main reason I uninstalled it was because one of the games I was playing at the time was not compatible and had not released a vista patch. I actually like Vista, Sure there are area that could be better but I am the one who has not taken the time to reinstall it and get my monies worth.

Netbooks. Atom and such don't come in 64bit flavours.

I think that's a load of crap. Why should we XP users be punished with a higher price because we chose to skip Vista?

I don't really want Windows.  But whether I want it or not, it's necessary in order to play the vast majority of games made for the PC.  I'd happily have a dual-booting system if there were two operating systems that competed for PC titles and each had their own merits, but that fiction has yet to become a reality.

The reason I don't like Windows is that it just doesn't quite deliver what I want from an operating system.  There's a limit to how much I can customise it to my tastes, one which at times seriously tests my patience.  I'll give you an example.  If I want to switch from desktop speakers to wearing headphones, I have to open the control panel, pick Sounds and Audio Devices, and then pick Advanced to adjust things accordingly.  And even then, on a dual monitor set up, if I didn't have a control panel shortcut on the second screen, the control panel and the subsequent Sounds panel would open over top of my game window, no matter how many times I dragged that panel over onto the second screen.  Things like that make me wonder, why the bloody hell bother having an extended desktop if everything is going to be sent to screen 1?

Don't sponsor laziness and lack of foresight, is all I'm saying.

Really? I just plug in my headphones and the sound chnges from speaker to headphones.

Vista64.

As for the Dual Screens I use Ultramon that has a lot of features that help with screen mangement.

I do get your points though.

wow.

This is a bit dependent on audio drivers. My motherboard's built-in Realtek sound automatically changes the output when I plug or unplug something, and the drivers give me controls to switch between inputs/outputs.

In addition, I think Windows 7 may have improved it a bit? I'm in Vista currently, so I can't check it.

I think that's in part about how DirectX works in full screen mode.

Some games have a full-screen "windowed" mode that acts like a window but fills the screen: That should get rid of the bad behaviors of the true full screen mode. Of course, the game needs to support it.

GalCiv 2 supports full screen windowed. Sins of a Solar Empire has a resizeable window mode that can be maximized (but still retains the Windows tile bar).

I said it should.. because no one is going to buy them now because they are old enough..

As MS did for MsDos and Win 3.1.....releasing them free..its time now for win 95/98/00.....

Releasing them free wont mean they should give support too. There are many freewares without support...

This wlll help them to spread some goodwill about them too because they have been enough criticised for their pricing....

I don't see how giving away useless, outdated, and obsolete goods will help their "goodwill." If they were realistic and reasonable about their current pricing, that would help a lot.

Giving them free will at least help students... Here are many in India and developing nations who still use Win 98/00..

Mostly in Cyber Cafes....... There are many books on which softwares are taught even on Win95...

These OS are not that much outdated... I still have to run my backup through win 98.... and most softwares still run on them... so they are better for learning... because they are economical and if they are free they will be most welcomed by students and Linux community..

And for looks Win 98/00 with windowblinds  can at  least match XP and even Vista......

The current pricing much depends on how free OS can compete against Mac and Windows.... I think there will be some discount for Vista users.... lets see what happens....

I currently have a beta version of Windows 7 running on a backup PC that is a few years old and it does seem to have some improvements over Vista as mentioned above.

I haven't ever purchased a retail O/S only OEM products as I always feel they don't warrant the extra added cost. That mainly being software tech support. I would pay around $100 for a basic OEM version without complaint but I doubt that will happen. I would guess $325 is going to be the premium retail price.

Because those of us who have Vista already paid for most major features that Windows 7 bring.

I don't mind paying for their next OS... Windows 7 is not a new OS though, it's an optimized, fixed version of vista. The main difference between vista and windows 7 is a few new apps.

Free is alot to ask though, cheap is good enough for me.

Personally, I don't think the OS should cost over $150 - for any version.

Given the cost of development vs. the return for investment (the man-hours versus the users cost), the OS should be the lowest common denominator in a computer system.

After all, MS Windows is used by, what, nearly 90% of all computer users?

That is so close to a monopoly that it makes little difference.

If Microsoft makes Windows 7 truly affordable to everyone - they will reap the good crop... in spades.

Here is my 2 cents on the pricing issue.

$299.00 for Windows 7 x86 Ultimate

$349.00 for Windows 7 X64 Ultimate

$190.00 for Windows 7 x86 Business

$220.00 for Windows 7 x64 Business

$129.00 for Windows 7 x86 Home

$159.00 for Windows 7 x64 Home

I figure by mid October of this this year it will be RTM and

be availible right after Thanksgiving. I figure Black Friday

would be a good release date ...