Last I looked MS didn’t write this article and if you would remove your head from your nether regions you would realize their implementation of it is novel, and this takes another weapon from the FUDpacker crowd, they cried about compatibility and losing legacy software and they also cried about Windows bloat and system gremlins well this helps to change that. Now your reaction is just what I expect from a liberal. Nothing is ever good enough, a company shouldn’t be proud of it’s offerings and they should sit their and give away their business to please the crybabies and freebie seekers. Jumping in on an OS topic makes you realize just how close some freepers are to being actual liberals.
The article is a repackaging of a Microsoft Press Release
they cried about compatibility and losing legacy software and they also cried about Windows bloat and system gremlins well this helps to change that.
Yup. No two ways about it; if you solve the "legacy" issue with virtualization, you can go to a clean slate and do things right in your new OS. You can even go to Unix and thereby make yourself as hard a target for hackers as Linux and OS X have shown themselves to be. That would put the "security by obscurity" theory of Linux/OS X to the ultimate test.Trouble is that if you do that you place yourself on a level playing field with Linux and OS X, two other Unix-based or (in the case of OS X, actual UnixTM) operating systems which can also virtualize Windows XP. You do that, and you then have to explain why Windows 7 is enough better than Linux to be worth its price - and make the case that Windows 7 is either better than (good luck with that), or comparable to and cheaper than, OS X.
If you are Microsoft you can probably sell Windows 7, with Win XP included, cheaper than Apple gets for OS X licenses, considering that Apple offers OS X licenses only for use on Apple-built computers.