Business 2.0 Says 'Boycott Vista'

amyandjake writes "Business 2.0 has a story about Vista's delays, the amount of time wasted by Microsoft bringing Vista to market, and the fact that it doesn't seem to have any compelling features for upgrading. The last paragraph of the story says 'Boycott Vista. Keep your old Windows XP PC around. Don't buy a new one. That's the only way we have to let Microsoft know Vista is an overhyped, late, and pointless update to XP — a perfectly fine operating system.'" Relatedly, torrensmith writes "Paul Thurrott is at it again with his seemingly never-ending supply of information about Windows Vista. This time, he discusses the things he dislikes about the program, in the article The Dark Side of Windows Vista RC1."

Comments

Ahead of them on that one

[ackthpt]

I'm not buying another version of Windows. I don't care how good they say it is. I was told Windows 95 would be awesome, it was suffering incarnate. I was told Windows 98 would be great, they started putting in irritating behaviour and it was still a pain to do things with. I was told Windows XP would be great, it's widely credited with being worse than Windows 98.

Next for me is either Mac or just throw everything I don't have in Linux into Linux. At least that way I stop paying a tax every few years to enrich people who have been very careless with security while at the same time trying to control everyone's market by bundling everything under the sun into it.

I think Vista could be the best thing Microsoft ever did for Apple or Linux.

Re:Ahead of them on that one

[Jaysyn]

I went back to Windows 2000.

Jaysyn

Re:The same thing was said about XP

[walt-sjc]

Hmm. Win2K still seems to be huge in the corporate world from what I've seen traveling around. I think the gratuitous random UI changes that simple cause support headaches and lack of compelling reason to upgrade is the cause of that. I still really don't see any major reason to go to XP from 2K (other than XP booting a little faster.)

Something analysts are forgetting...

[RobertM1968]

MS is making big deals with resellers to push Vista to non-Vista computer users. I work for a CompUSA in NY, and we are soon going to be required to do a Vista analysis on every machine that comes in for service to "advise" the customer of all the "reasons" they should be replacing XP/NT/etc with Vista: "multimedia advantages", "better performance", "better security", "the neat UI experience", and infinitum. Will we? Well, not at this store (we WILL have to run the stupid thing, but we won't be recommending it - which alone can get us into trouble). MS also has deals with resellers where we get credits (towards what, corporate hasnt been clear about - but they make it sound very important to our future business model) for each copy of Vista we activate for a customer and choose CompUSA as the place of purchase. These credits are accrued for each online purchase through MS and their partners of any additional software the consumer buys.

All in all, it might not be what the customer wants, but MS is ensuring that resellers are doing their best to convince customers that. With their new online software purchasing model, resellers are seeing a need to do this so they get some sort of revenue (credits) for lost software sales that are supposedly going to be done online through MS and their partners.

Remember, reality doesnt matter... marketing and pressure on resellers does - most people arent computer saavy enough to know whether they are being sold a boat or a boat anchor we've tied around their neck.

-Rob

Re:so, is MS okay to bundle now?

[carpeweb]

OK, I get that it's bundling; and I get why that's "bad".

But, isn't burning a CD or DVD essentially I/O? (OK, maybe just O.) IANASA, but that sounds a lot like a basic OS function to me. Yeah, I know it's a direct competitor to existing "products". Existing products that exist because a basic OS function was ... overlooked?

I'm trying not to be a smart-ass about this (but I was never very good at restraint). So, is it ok for MS to bundle basic OS functions with their OS?

Confessions of an Ex-M$ Junkie

[Zaphod2016]

From DOS 6.22 through Win XP; I was a M$ junkie. I even went so far as to become MCSE cert. and to attend various M$ propaganda shows here and there. I was one of those guys who justified my addiction by saying "everyone has it" or "I know how to use M$ stuff- I'm too set in my ways to change".

But it wasn't OSX, *Nix or even the delays of Vista that turned me off to Heir Gates- it was the Internet. As soon as I realized that 90% of my "mission critical" activities were all web-based (email, research, development) I realized that it really didn't matter which desktop I used- they all connected to the same Internet.

Once I got past that hurdle, I found the courage to play with various linux distros and ended up on a Mac running OSX. In retrospect, I can see perfectly well that all of these options are superior to windows (for my needs, perhaps not yours). However, I was unwilling to even explore my other options because I had trapped myself into a proprietary mindset- something even more dangerous than a proprietary format.

Having played with these various OSes, I can see that each of them has "borrowed" from each other; features that prove popular in one almost inevitably find themselves to the others. Just like a favorite make/model of car, there is no "wrong" answer, only preferences and favorites. I think the "masses" are begining to understand this, just as they understand a choice between pickup truck or sports car (good for different things).

And this is why Vista is "doomed"- the dreaded Microsoft Monopoly preys on the ignorance and confusion of the masses. And yes, most people over the age of 40 are mildly retarded in terms of computers. But these dinosaurs are quickly being replaced by a new generation, the first generation "raised on the Internet", the first generation of which 90% are proficient and experienced with a home PC. The confusion factor shrinks more every day, directly proportionate to the decline in M$ market share.

Re:Confessions of an Ex-M$ Junkie

[IronChef]

However, I was unwilling to even explore my other options because I had trapped myself into a proprietary mindset- something even more dangerous than a proprietary format.

I used to work at Microsoft. I was a lowly orange badge contactor, but I was there for a couple of years alltogether--long enough to get a peek at the corporate culture. Maybe my area was special, but from what I saw the "proprietary mindset" applied to the people making those products too. I encountered many developers and IT guys who didn't seem to understand that there was a whole world of computers beyond Windows.

It's OK to use Windows. It's even OK to like Windows. But it seems like any computer professional should understand the rest of the ecosystem (eg Unix), at least in general terms. These guys just had a big blind spot though.

What a strange place.

32 and 64 bit Vista Versions is like Beta vs VCR

[Carlyle]

What I worry about is there being 32 and 64 bit versions of Vista. I think it just confuses the market. I use the computer for software development, business, media editing, and gaming. I would like to get the 64 bit version of Windows Vista for the expanded memory capability, and the signed drivers. What scares me away though is the fact that there is a 32 bit version of Vista.

Are the people who make my development software, business software, media software, and games going to develop their products for both versions of the operating system? Will I have to worry about compatibility issues? If my current library of software, hardware, and games work with the 32-bit version of the Vista operating system will they also work with the 64 bit version?

Can we really expect hardware manufacturers to make top quality drivers for both the 32 and 64 bit versions of Vista? Will it take longer for hardware manufacturers to produce drivers now since they have to provide two versions? Why didn't microsoft make a single unified driver model for the 32/64 bit versions of Vista? As I understand it, Apple has done this.

I wish they had just made a 64 bit version of Vista, and focused on giving it a good Windows on Windows emulation for 32 bit apps and backwards compatibility. The only reason I can see for having a 32-bit version of the OS is because Intel currently ships Core 2 Duo chips that are only 32-bits.

Usually I've always upgraded to the latest version of windows as soon as it was released to retail, but I intend to wait several months before I make a purchase. Now I feel forced to wait until I hear all reviews about compatibility and stability, and opinion articles about 32 bit versus 64 bit. I plan to buy a whole new machine to ensure full compatibility with the new OS and to take advantage of it's high end features.

I like a lot of what I've seen about the architecture of Windows Vista and the new features they have added, what I don't like is the uncertainty of the compatibility. If I buy the 64 bit version of Vista will I be screwed by compatibility issues, and slow hardware driver releases? Will I be able to play my games or am I buying a Beta machine?

Re:Flaimbait this is

[SmurfButcher Bob]

Ah!

So, perhaps you can name a SINGLE "useful new feature" that is worth $170k in new desktops across my enterprise. And when I say "useful", I mean it'll earn that $170k BACK somehow.

Please, name one. And, "Solitare 2007" doesn't cut it.

Re:Another issue

[voice_of_all_reason]

but I have a feeling that Vista users will experience some of the same kinds of pain they've already endured with XP.

Exactly. It reminds me of The Onion's article on "World Death Rate Hovers at a Steady 100%" Microsoft says Vista will revolutionize security and make it (nearly) tamper-proof. When you look at how that's been promised in some form for every single OS they've released, and then later proven wildly false, you have to see a pretty consistent pattern.

Re:Flaimbait this is

[boingo82]

But it is sort of because XP has bad shortcuts. I spent 4 years on OS9, and even though it's not my operating system of choice, I am super-fast at it thanks to shortcuts. The most helpful thing was setting up all my directories so each started with a different letter. To open a photo file, I would hit cmd-o cmd-d p enter d enter f enter enter ENTER, the p, d, and f navigating through the folders. I knew every directory's location in relation to the desktop and had aliases set up from folder to folder to speed things up. I knew the cmd-down and cmd-up way to navigate folders in finder. I could (and did) operate the machine for 45 minutes without once touching the mouse.

XP doesn't let me do that. I actually am MORE experienced on XP, and it is my preferred OS, but I'm not as fast at it. To my knowledge there's no handy "go-up-a-folder" shortcut or "go-to-desktop" shortcut when in the "open" or "save" dialog. There ARE shortcuts, but none are the ones I used most frequently. Navigating folders/files by keystroke alone is more tedious.

Re:Flaimbait this is

[SmurfButcher Bob]

> I would say the TCP/IP improvements,

No value; existing network is tuned as good as it gets.

> productivity gains from improved UI,

I've yet to meet one SINGLE user who spends *ANY* time in the OS UI. Result: 0. Users spend time in app-land, not the desktop. And again, a new improved "open/save" common-dialogue doesn't cut it. On a good day, a fancy new dialog might change an 8 second process... to a 7 second process. It'll be years before we see our $60 at that rate; you're also ignoring the cash required to pay me to roll this stuff out, which is one hell of a lot more than $60 a shot.

> the revamped security model,

Again, not relevent - it does not allow for the relaxation of any legacy tactics... at the end of the day, it's just more eye-candy that accomplishes nothing, just another layer of complexity that must be managed yet provides no value. "Revamped"... you mean, "not yet debugged". You know, like WMTimer priv escallation design flaw stuff.

> and the general reliability improvements you'll get from Vista

Sorry to take exception to this one, rofl... that would be a negative value. We're already at a 2-nine uptime (if we *ignore* black tuesday) with XP and 2K; any "crashes" are generally a result of bad behavior in userland, which has no bearing on the OS. You're asking us to start back at square-one, and you're retroactively giving credit to the stability of WVSP6a before we've even hit SP1, yet. Sorry, but "reliability improvements" are long, long ways away.

So, you gave it a good amateur try... but I'm still waiting for an actual reason that puts money on the table, which includes User's Time.