Slashdot Mirror
PC Magazine Editor Throws in the Towel on Vista
MacNN caught this incredible defection and loss of faith by a former Vista booster, PC Magazine editor-in-chief Jim Louderback, as he steps down from his position. "I've been a big proponent of the new OS over the past few months, even going so far as loading it onto most of my computers and spending hours tweaking and optimizing it. So why, nine months after launch, am I so frustrated? The litany of what doesn't work and what still frustrates me stretches on endlessly. The upshot is that even after nine months, Vista just ain't cutting it. I definitely gave Microsoft too much of a free pass on this operating system: I expected it to get the kinks worked out more quickly. Boy, was I fooled! If Microsoft can't get Vista working, I might just do the unthinkable: I might move to Linux."
A silly AC writes:
Apparently there are more people reading Distrowatch with Vista than they are with Debian, ... The ultimate irony here - Distrowatch.com. It just kills me.
Vista owners are looking for a new OS. Why does this confuse you? If Vista is as bad as Louderback says it is, gnu/linux is the only upgrade option that will work. Large numbers of Windoze users looking at a site like Distrowatch is bad news for M$ and good news for software freedom.
I guess all this nonsense about Vista being a flop is far from true.
Visit the Vista failure log and wake up. M$ can't push Vista. It's SP1 won't fix things and I doubt they can come up with a new OS people will really want. They have gone too far down the digital restrictions path to recover.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Perhaps the news is that, since this person is leaving his job at a magazine paid for by advertising, he is finally free to tell the truth.
This is not to say that Linux or OSX or anything else is perfect. The problem is that Vista was billed as 'all new' and 'rewritten from the ground up'. It wasn't. THAT is was sucks about it.
A-Bomb
...whatever MS comes up with. We are happily running our apps and games on 2003 server or XP. I support and use Linux in the server room, but in the real world with the apps and games all running on Windows, desktops will stay where they are.
People keep saying this is the year for the Linux desktop because of Vista's failures, when most people don't care because XP and 2003 run just fine for them. They aren't looking for change from Vista or Lunix or anything else for that matter.
The [allegedly] slow adoption of Vista is not due to DRM; it's because the OS is a resource hog.
Outside of that, I think it's silly to try and use overall numbers as a gauge of how successful it is as an operating system people LIKE. Vista's numbers are going to go up regardless, since almost all new PC's and laptops you buy will have Vista installed.
But it's clear that not everyone is happy with it. Check out a site like notebookreview.com, and notice how for almost every new laptop that has come out, there is invariably a thread or two about getting XP running on it.
... and just waited to publish it until he was leaving PCMag.
As Molly Ivins said: "Ya gotta dance with them what brung you."
Louderback's job was to keep his advertisers happy and I'm sure that was a big factor in how he chose to color his experience with Vista.
Not surprising.
-S
All I can say, he deserves what he got.
;)
If you pander to just one operating system, as a supposed computer professional, your simply not up to the job in the first place.
A true, passionate PC user (and by that, I mean Personal Computer User, NOT just windows), you owe it to yourself to be up to speed on as much as possible. You should have at your fingertips either virtual or full iterations of Windows, Linux and MacOS.
The name of this magazine is "PC Magazine", to me, that means "Personal Computer Magazine" - of course, we all know the reality is that it's 90% windows based. (A personal irritation of mine is assuming that a PC is a windows box - akin to calling computer criminals hackers)
That the ex-editor should declare using Linux unthinkable is unthinkable in itself.
Lets hope the new editor has a bit more savvy, not that I care, I don't read computer magazines anymore, now I know why...
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
Thank you very much, but Linux doesn't need "friends" who use it as a Horrible Fate that they'll threaten to inflict on themselves as a way to get Mommy Microsoft's sympathetic attention.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Funny and close to the truth. ....
At the risk of destroying a good joke by examining the kernel of truth in it
Microsoft is a marketing company. They do marketing. That is their specialty.
When I worked at Intel I quickly realized that Intel wasn't an engineering/design company, but a manufacturing company. AMD might make a better chip but Intel could make their chips for less and sell them for more.
However, it seems to me that it's likely that there are people who dislike Vista who've never even touched it, nor are informed about it. They dislike it because others, whose opinions they're willing to trust, do.
Tha'ts what viral marketing is all about ... trusted people influencing others. But it works both for you and against you.
I used to get PC Mag years ago, but stopped because I felt that the magazine was too biased in favor of MS.
I think all the big paper magazines around these parts have fallen for the same trap there. I gave up PC World, and later PC Pro, because their reviews of new versions of Windows, Office, etc. just seemed like sucking up to MS. That and the fact that in the latter case, they went to cover-DVD-only and more-or-less doubled the price, so I was paying more for a disc mostly full of junk and pretty much all of which I could just download if I wanted it than I was for a magazine that was half ads anyway. Oh, and the fact that most of their news stories were light on details, and those light details had been reported on the Internet weeks earlier.
The only point of still having magazines like this is if they can supply quality, in-depth reviews of products and industry analysis by people with the connections to find the material and the writing ability to report it well. If all they do is publish fluff reviews and sound-bite news, why on earth would I pay for that when I can read the same for free on-line?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Allegedly? So are you saying that vista adoption is not slow?
Gotcha. So it's not selling slowly, but that's only because it's a resource hog. I guess MS have realised that what the consumer really wants is bloat, and that if they hadn't made the OS so greedy then no one would be buying it?
Or did you just mean that it is selling slowly, and that's because it does need too many resources, but that it's very rude of us to go around saying so. Perhaps you meant yes it's not selling, and yes it's bloated, but don't go around bad mouthing DRM?
The trouble is, really, that to pin Vista's woes (alleged, if you insist) on any single factor is probably a gross oversimplification. Vista's problems include patchy driver support, a confusing pricing scheme, the lack of any compelling "must-have" feature for the OS, the fact that a lot of people don't want to change from XP, dislike of the licence terms, fears of added expense in terms of new software and hardware that may be needed to run the damn thing.
The that fact that it's a resource hog isn't helping, either, and neither is the DRM (because like it or not, an awful lot of XP users also use P2P) and neither is the fact that it's had some scathing reviews, many of them from writers normally counted among the Redmond faithful.
Still, at least the resource problem will go away as machines get faster. I suppose if you had to pick a single cause that's the one that lets the OS still seem like a viable concern. Maybe sales will take off next year if and when XP really gets retired.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
If you say you have had no problems with it, then you really shouldn't start off your next sentence about a bug that's a show stopper for you and caused you to reinstall the previous OS.
So you are writing off Linux because ATi has delivered sub-par Linux drivers thus far? And your solution is Windows 2000? I won't even take the easy shot at Mandriva....
For a heavy Microsoft supporter, Macs are the unthinkable option - Linux is like the escape pod, cramped but familiar and you won't get as much merciless teasing from your compatriots.
P.S. - I too am a Linux supporter, and know "cramped" is a poor description of something that really is more free and liberating - but that's the intitial feeling Windows users get.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
A similar mistake is often made with respect to Google. Lots of people make the mistake of thinking that Google is a search or software company. That's worng. Google is an advertising company that uses search and software as a method of delivering ads.
If only there were some alternative means of playing video games in one's own home. Like an appliance for video games, a console if you will...
And on that subject, this Amiga ex-user is taking enormous pleasure in seeing Windows relegated to "games system" status.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I bailed on MS after windows '95 came out. It sucked. I have used only Linux since.
I suppose that sooner or later everyone will learn.
I open up the one copy of PC Mag I have sitting by desk, and read Dvorak's column from 1998 in which he predicts that Windows 98 on a Pentium 2 is more power than anyone will ever need, and that WebTV will make home PCs obsolete.
Win2K SP4 lives on an old laptop of mine, and works just great. So I guess it's a viable desktop option for some of us. It feels snappier than XP to me, but who knows.
I'm not an OS X troll. I have a Gentoo desktop, a MacBook, a RHEL install, and the Windows laptop I mentioned, and they all get regular use right now for the big project I'm working on. For the average consumer, OS X is the killer, hands down.
Well at least you didn't spend $300 bucks to install Mandriva.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Do you feel you should have had to suffer those pains for 8 months? Can you concede that MS may have jumped the gun and released Vista too soon? Things such as slow file copying should NOT make it into a retail release. Even after stripping out the new features they kept talking about (WinFS, Nomad come to mind), they still couldn't release it without MAJOR bugs. So many people complain about its problems waking from sleep that they had to have known it was an issue before it was released. If I was working on a project, got a phone call and my computer went to sleep, only to have it not wake up again, I would be royally pissed off. I'm sure Microsoft appreciates all the free beta testing they've gotten from all you early adopters, though. If I were you, I'd call and ask for a paycheck for your time. Thankfully I build my own PCs and have not had Vista forced upon me.
today is spelling optional day.
This means one or both of the following:
1) As an editor he HAD to push Microsoft products for the ad revenue. When he couldn't any longer, they dumped him.
2) Same as the above, except pushing crap products finally got to him and he quit.
Wonder how many other well-known PC zine employees are getting fed up with being forced to push Microsoft's shit when they know it isn't worth the bandwidth bits or CD pits it came on.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I've spent almost 30 years in tech (started when I was 11 yo with a teletype, keep your friggin jokes to yourselves), and the last decent product MS made was called DOS 5.0 ! Even that was just playing "keep up" with the market. Anyone that says,"Microsoft made this or that great product!" might want to check again. They either bought it from someone else, aped their design, or hired someone else to create it for them. They are serious, old-school, "buy and conquer" business people, not dedicated techies. They would rather get paid a billion $s for raping customers with a pile of crap, than invest the time and effort into making a good product.
Yea, I know the mantra,"If they didn't have to provide backwards compatability for third-party hard/software, it would be a better system." Wake up. They DON'T provide backward compatability! They're just tacking new crap on top of old, and they break shit all the time! If your app from DOS or Win95 still works you're lucky, that's all. I've had several apps that broke on new OS releases,
just like they're doing with Vista, and XP before that, and NT before that. If you want backwards compatability, the only good way I can think of to do that is to run the old OS in a VM. That way you get the benefits of the new OS, and can run all your old stuff on the old OS.
I've talked about Linux with my family and friends, and they all bring up the same points: their games (or Apps) won't play on Linux; who cares about whether it's free or not, they just pirate windows and its' apps anyways. When I point out that Linux has very few (effectively none) virus or spyware weaknesses, they just say that they use (pirated) Norton. Why should they use GIMP when they've got the latest (pirated) Photoshop? Windows has built up an accepted culture of theft in modern society, and conditioned people to think that it's okay.
I used to pirate. I used to collect software and cracks and trade them with others. Then I found free/shareware programs that were really good, and I started looking for and using more of it. It felt good to not have to be afraid of getting caught with $80K worth of stolen software on my machines. I've gradually moved to using legit and free software, and it feels good. It wasn't quick or comprehensive, there are still apps we use that are proprietary, but they are getting fewer as I find freeware replacements.
MS has given us a fairly consistent (fairly F*ed up) computer environment for the last 20 yrs, yet it has also made thieves of most everyone I know. Has it been worth it?
No.
When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
... a few hundred million people who say "well, this Vista now is the very last MS wagon I'll jump onto, because I have to (bla bla), but the next time, I swear, (mumble, mumble)" etc.
MS doesn't care to have friends, fans or enthusiasts, a huge number of long term "for the last time" customers is just as good to them.
After all, a business model that works, some Jim Louderbacks notwithstanding
You might be happy with a seven year old OS, but most of us would like something a little more modern. Most GNU/Linux distributions have been through two stable releases since 2001 and each brought real improvements and features.
I don't begrudge your happiness but that kind of thing is short lived. Sooner or later XP users are going to join w2k, ME, 98, 95, 3.1 and DOS users who can't find new software or replacement devices that work with their OS. The non free software forces are working on new formats and devices that won't work with XP. If you wait too long, your work harder to transfer and your losses will mount. The waste of your time and effort is intentional and is the way the upgrade treadmill works. Those who think otherwise live in a fool's paradise.
Free software is the only upgrade that escapes the non free data trap and upgrade treadmill. The purpose of non free software is to make money for it's owners. To do this, the owners must keep users helpless and divided. Free software has a simpler purpose, to do what users want.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Funny posts!
Poor little windows users must feel so trod upon.
The only thing is Linux is ready for prime time. And users can run it dual-boot if they still need their wondows training wheels.
There is a really good GUI interface for configuration and the stuff isn't that hard. Really. The fact that Linux allows people to customize and configure doesn't mean they have to or have to know all about it. Microsoft hides that stuff from users and makes it hard to do your own configuration. There was another thread here about how all the ad servers slow down web page loading and it was mentioned there that Vista won't let you add offending sites into the hosts file. I did it on a Linux machine and an Apple laptop running OSX - and it was easy. now I don't have any more offending popups or ad junk and my pages load really fast - just with blank spaces where the ads would have been otherwise.
But people don't need to know how to do that stuff but they can if they want. Lots of stuff comes with step by step instructions. People can go with the stock setup - which right out of the box is much more secure and capable than windows - or they can *if they want* learn more and actually administer and configure their own computer. I will take the path of choice rather than have my hands tied by Bill and Steve.
But the windows crowd needs to take a powder. Their fav OS is getting knocked because it sucks. They need to accept that and get on with their lives.
I'm starting to wonder at this point is... how much of the Vista hate is just hype-driven? ... [people] dislike it because others, whose opinions they're willing to trust, do.
No one hates Vista, it's just software. Only tools from M$ talk about "hate" when people have the nerve to say Vista does not work. That kind of talk makes me think you have a strange definition of "happy" when you say are a happy Vista user.
Trusting someone like Louderback is entirely reasonable. He's a M$ fan. He gave Vista nine months and worked hard to make it work for him. As Editor in Chief of PC Magazine, he has access to resources that should have made him happy. If M$ can't make him happy, they won't make you happy. It's a lot more reasonable than listening to some random dude from Slashdot who looks like astroturf.
There are clear risks and no benefit to Vista and it's hurting PC sales. Are you going to spend $300 and play application roulette for something with bugs the size of Manhattan? Are you going to buy a new computer with it? Few of us will. I'm not, unless it comes with gnu/linux on it. M$ fans are not because they can't be sure XP will work with it. You are going to have to produce a big list of cool stuff Vista does to convince even M$ users to migrate when other M$ fans have such negative opinions.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I'm not saying Microsoft Windows is bad, just that it's not ready for prime time. Maybe Microsoft will catch up to other O/S vendors in another 10 or 20 years. It's fortunate for them that they're a protected monopoly and they'll probably have that time.
"I gave Vista too much free pass".
I have to ask, "Well why the hell did you do that?"
You shouldn't give a good review to something that isn't working well simply because you THINK or HOPE it will be fixed in the future. Doing so is selling yourself out and isn't responsible journalism.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
to be brutally honest with the Mac fandom crowd, a hell of a lot more inexpensive than the Macbook
Mac fans are not disturbed by the fact that your cheap-@$$ laptop is only semi-functional.
And before you go ranting about me being a pro-MS whore or whatever, remember, the worst thing you can do is underestimate an enemy.
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
Is it me? Or are AC's not even trying anymore?
The thing though, is that XP isn't really a 7-year-old OS. It *would* be if Microsoft quit development on it, but they're continuing to patch it and add more support for it. I suppose you could call it a 3-year-old OS, since SP2 came out in 2004, and SP3 apparently is only adding support for more registration keys.
Calling Windows XP a 7-year-old OS is like calling modern Linux systems nearly 4 years old because the 2.6 branch was released in late 2003. Or that servers are running 6-year-old OS's because the 2.4 branch was released in 2001.
"And users can run it dual-boot if they still need their wondows training wheels."
Or if they actually want to play games... I used Linux exclusively for 3+ years. I went back to Windows because I'm a gamer, and could never get this system to dual boot properly. I use race sims which would require my game to work, my wheel and pedals to work etc... It has nothing to do with "training wheels" and everything to do with functionality. I love games. That is STILL the one arena Linux falls over in. Yes, someone will list a bunch of games that run in Linux, and you know what? Most will suck. It doesn't run the games I WANT TO RUN. rFactor, GTR2, Battlefield 2 etc...
Please don't think I'm a Windows supporter because I'm not (well, read my other posts for this story) but to think that the only reason to keep Windows around is because you're a newbie is flat out wrong.
There's a difference between being a Microsoft supporter, and being a realist about Linux.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
There are genres of PC games that don't exist on consoles.
I don't think we'll see Civ 5 on xbox, or NWN 3 on playstation.
Fung-fu games need controllers, strategy games need mouse+keyboard, c'est la vie.
I personally prefer mouse+keyboard FPSs instead of a controller, but I know many people disagree.
I see this sort of comment flying around on here, unchallenged. As much as I love MS bashing, does anybody have any links to articles that verify this? Doesn't the DRM only come in to play when you want to watch HD-DVD or Blu Ray movies (or some Windows Media format)? How can it be sitting there chewing cycles at any other time?
Another poster on here insinuated that user's would not want to move from Vista to XP because they like to use P2P programs. How on earth does Vista prevent that?
-- The doctor said I wouldn't get so many nose bleeds if I just kept my finger out of there!
Agreed. The problem is, this time, Microsoft is attempting to force the issue by removing XP from the market. I have spoken to no less than 7 people in the past WEEK alone that are buying new computers now so they can get XP instead of Vista. People don't get to wait the 2 years until the software is stable, Microsoft is forcing them to buy the unstable version so that it can improve its quarterly earnings. When XP was released, Microsoft waited over 2 years to pull 98 from the market. This time, they tried to do it a mere 4 months after releasing Vista, only to extend it to the end of the year (a mere 9 months) after the consumer outcry.
While Microsoft is entitled to pull a product if they don't want to sell it anymore, the flip side of that is that the only reason they can get away with it is because of their power over the market. When a company removes from the market a product for which there is huge demand, to replace it with something with little demand, you can be assured there's something seriously wrong with the competitive status of that market.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
Undoubtedly the biggest waste of money was most likely in the (FU)DRM, who knows hoe many trial versions were scrapped due to failure before the settled on the one that only mostly fails rather than always fails. PC Magazine editor-in-chief Jim Louderback has to be congratulated for his efforts, I got pissed of with Vista after fours hours, reformatted drive and settled on stale piss for the game boot.
Ballmer is desperate to get across the board licence fees into the windows OS just like the xbox, this failure is just another indication of his technical incompetence.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
But you don't have to actually have a previous version of OS X to install said "upgrade". For $130, you get the newest version of the OS on CD....Period! It isn't an upgrade, because you don't have to have OS X installed for the "upgrade" to work (or at least not up through X.49, but that may change). So in effect, you are getting the "full" OS (even if it is able to be licensed on non-Macs...yet).
The difference between a home-build PC and a PC from (say) Dell is little enough that the OS wouldn't be able to tell.
If there is a difference, its that you get more standard and higher quality components if you buy/build it yourself. Pre-build companies use the cheapest shit they can find (profit margin) and make stuff non-standard on purpose so you have to buy their overpriced servicing and replacements. On example is Dell's cross-wired power connector. All the same wires as a standard power-supply and same connector, just wired on different pins. Replace your Dell's blown PSU with an off-the-shelf one and its goodbye PC.
Actually I would expect a home-build PC to be more likely to run Vista properly than a pre-built PC, not less.
So yes, it is an upgrade, but unlike the Windows world, it is also a full install. I understand you are disgruntled because you want to use OS X on cheap PC hardware (or you want to buy a Mac without paying for OS X being installed), but that doesn't make your post correct. You are playing word games and not looking at the issue objectively.