Slashdot Mirror
John Dvorak On Vista's Launch
An anonymous reader writes "John is at it again, this time with his take on the launch of Microsoft's Vista operating system. John covers the reality from a market perspective, looking at whether the release will affect PC sales, peripherals ... or even Microsoft." From the article: "While there is no way that Vista will be a flop, since all new computers will come with Vista pre-installed, there seems to be no excitement level at all. And there does not seem to be any compelling reason for people to upgrade to Vista. In fact, the observers I chat with who follow corporate licensing do not see any large installations of Windows-based computers upgrading anytime soon. The word I keep hearing is 'stagnation.' Industry manufacturers are not too thrilled either. One CEO who supplies a critical component for all computers says he sees a normal fourth quarter then nothing special in the first quarter for the segment. Dullsville."
Is this the same Dvorak we've all come to know and love? Who thinks Microsoft should buy Opera, that CSS doesn't work because he couldn't figure out what "cascading" meant, and admits to trolling Mac users?
Oh, wait, he's making disparaging remarks about Microsoft! I'm sorry I ever doubted you, John!
Firefox prevented this site from opening 3 popup windows.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I've seen and worked with vista already. Here were my impressions.
It is really hard to lose your work. It is really easy to find your files.
It is a lot prettier.
The GUI for the system has been re-engineered and it is easier to use. Other applications have been rewritten to have the same look and feel so that the system as a whole will be easier to use.
It was not stable when I used it.
I think Microsoft made a big mistake by releasing Vista to businesses first. I think consumers are somewhat excited about Vista or will be when the majority of them actually see Aero in action. In general, businesses don't need Vista or care about the new thing because however you want to package it, its going to cost them more money. The only thing accurate about this article is that Vista will not be a flop because it won't be long before you can only buy a new computer with Vista on it. As that happens, and as more computers get into the hands of consumers, business will have to catch up.
Seriously Zonk, if you're never going to accept stories from me while you're on duty, at least have the guts to email me and tell me. It will save us both time and effort. This nonsense is just childish.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Last week Dvorak was an idiot, but today he's the best tech columnist in the world.Even a broken watch is right twice a day.
At the end of the day, the operating system's purpose is really to give me access to my programs. On Windows, that means a lot, but I'm fairly happy with the way XP does it. The people who should care about major OS changes ought to be the developers; a new OS changes the rules of the game they play. In general, I don't want to shell out $200 for another OS, as long as the one I have is doing its job.
I've talked to a couple of my friends, and they are not very impressed by what they see in Vista in terms of new tools for the developers. Major changes, yes, but few of them practically interesting, in the sense that they either serve such a small subset of programs that they won't be used by the average developer or there already exists a perfectly reasonable way to do the job in Windows XP. Just as I don't want to buy a new interface if my current one is acceptable, they don't want to have to re-invent wheels just because all the 'fooX' functions are now 'barX' functions.
GNU/Linux is a little different; since the operating system is available cost-free, there's no disincentive to immediately adopting upgrades (except for instability, which is probably the biggest issue with new developments and is also shared by the must-be-purchased OS's). But with Windows, they need to really convince me that there's some truly profound new way of talking to my applications that I just gotta try.
I feel like we've reached a design plateau with both Windows XP and MacOSX these days. They both do what they do extremely well, and most of the other needs can be satisfied by the applications themselves without changing the OS. Until I'm given a very good reason to pay money to learn a new way of talking to my programs, I'll hold off, thanks.
Take care,
Mark
There is a solution...
know our company will not be upgrading soon.
First of all, we wait for at least a year of patching before trusting a MS product. Second, Vista is a huge resource hog. We see no reason to waste that much RAM, CPU cycles for prettier windows that don't do more. Third, price. The costs to upgrade company wide a effing astronomical. For what, a bug-filled (I'll call it a safe assumption) resource hog?
This is also coming from someone who is generally likes Windows XP. XP has become a pretty stable OS that is familiar and works well. So far Vista has offered nothing that makes us want to even know more about it. Heck, you could figure out how to display the desktop in 5D or shut it down 42 different ways for all I care, I want my RAM back!
But considering they've yet again linked to useless Dvorak drivel, I guess I'll comment on the topic.
John is treading in pretty "safe" territory with these comments. Vista really isn't exciting very many people. But at this point in the game, does it make any difference? Microsoft could release practically anything as a new OS update, and within 2-3 years, the majority of computer users will be running it - even if absolutely *none* of them voluntarily purchased it as an upgrade. As long as it comes preloaded on the vast majority of new computers purchased (and it does), they're keeping users on their migration path.
I just got out of a technical meeting at my workplace this morning, and one of our discussions topics was the I.T. budget for 2007. It was universally agreed (with very little debate) that there's nothing compelling about spending money to upgrade our computer hardware (all Pentium 4 class systems with between 512MB and 1GB of RAM). We also agreed that it would be wasteful to spend money upgrading to Vista in 2007, since we're currently on XP Pro and it does everything we need. In the case of Office 2007, the only reason we'd upgrade to it is in response to receiving too many documents from our customers that were created in Office '07. Until that happens, it's a total waste of money for us to move to it.
I can't see how many businesses out there would conclude otherwise? With the migration from Windows 2000 to XP, there were a few "drivers" that compelled people. One big one was better, more user-friendly wireless networking support. That, alone, made my laptop upgrade from 2000 to XP a big improvement. (You still can't even use WPA type wireless encryption in Win2K without 3rd. party software add-ons.)
But with Vista, you've got new toolbars and eye-candy (some of which costs extra in terms of higher-end gaphics hardware to make use of it), and apparently a more complicated and restrictive EULA to boot. The things that would have cost-justified the product, at least in the eyes of corporate customers, were largely canned (such as the initially promised "revolutionary new file system"), and instead, we get things like more restrictive DRM for digital music. This makes it an upgrade you're forced to accept, rather than one you *want*.
I like
Its narrow minded sentiment like this that actually keeps people from switching to linux and its surrounding projects. You called the man a fool for stating a FACT. Instead of negative sentiment about M$ why not just give the reasons/FACTS of why linux and FOSS is a better solution. The results might surprise you, unless the only result that you expect from your generosity is for the people you to help to gain your zealotness.
Go ahead and mod me whatever, I've got karma to burn from making insightful posts...
When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
Does this mean we'll finally get one of those nifty GUIs where the fonts are fixed at 36-point and above, all text appears one letter at a time, applications are always maximized, and the search function flashes thumbnails of every file that doesn't match as it goes through the index?
Of course people are still running Windows 2000. What features does XP have that make the work of your IT staff any easier? What programs do you really need to run for business purposes that run on Windows XP and not Windows 2000? In what way does Windows XP offer a significant improvement to productivity? How will the purchase of Windows XP licenses result in saving your company money? If you can't answer these questions definitively, then there's probably no reason to upgrade.
Good IT people are practical, and won't want to upgrade to the newest thing just because it's new. Along with everything else, new software usually brings new problems, which require new bug-fixes and work-arounds. Windows 2000 and Office 2000 make a great combo, and don't require inconvenient activation schemes. Sometimes it's better to stick with the devil you know.
Try telling that to my Casio. I'm still waiting for 88:88ampm to come round.
spoonerize "magic trackpad"