Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Should Abandon Vista?
mr_mischief writes "An editorial written by Don Reisinger over at CNet's News.com takes Microsoft to task for the outright failure of Vista. He suggests that Vista may be the downfall of the company as, despite years in development, Vista was delivered to market too early. His suggestion? Support those who are running it, but otherwise ditch Vista and move on. 'Never before have I seen such an abysmal start to an operating system release. For almost a year, people have been adopting Vista and becoming incensed by how poorly it operates. Not only does it cost too much, it requires more to run than XP, there is still poor driver support ... With Mac OS X hot on its tail, Vista is simply not capable of competing at an OS level with some of the best software around. If Microsoft continues down this path, it will be Vista that will bring the software giant to its knees--not Bill Gates' departure.'"
All that being said, Microsoft is still a juggernaut, and they will continue for many years to come. My guess is five to ten years...
Dominant Meme
Yeah, I must admit as well, I don't know what that was about :) ME was absolutely awful, and any computer I've ever serviced running it has mostly just called for XP.
I run linux on a server, a desktop, and a personal laptop, and I really hate to admit it, but XP has grown to be a nice OS of sorts. I'd almost rather see them further development on XP instead of ditching the nice foundation they have.
I think linux kind of thrives in that although their are major releases, people have constant input into the minor changes that get made to make a major release, as well as govern the major changes all throughout its development. This ensures that the OS helps to fulfill the interests of the users, not just the company producing it. Since there's not as much monetary pressure as a publicly owned company has, Linux can live its destined life. If it doesn't fulfill the needs of the users at any point, it would become abandoned.
At least the linux community has the chance for slow path traversal, versus just releasing one product to the public and having it be done with.
I work with Vista, so I'm really getting a kick out of all these replies...
Dumping Vista is unlikely, as the real driver for change here is revenue.
If Microsoft switched to a support model - cheap OS and bill for official MS tech support (or charge officially trained MS techs to keep their credentials via refresher courses and recertification) - they wouldn't need to force out a new product on a regular basis to make money.
Instead, we'd be seeing 'XP 2.0' coming out with incremental improvements and a whole slew of new support docs, training, and tech certificates.
This short essay by Orson Scott Card (of Ender's Game fame) I think describes the development of the Microsoft Vista disaster pretty well.
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
Folks,
..and in the IT Consulting community, the cache of owning a MB Pro is really taking hold.
I've always been in the camp that admired Microsoft and their products. I was an OS/2 guy out of the gate in my career, and when Windows 95 was released I was blown away at how innovative it was when it came to a consumer operating system.
Fast forward to today. I waited about 4 months before going out an purchasing Vista for my primary Windows XP machine. When I purchased Vista, I opted for the Ultimate edition, and looked forward to working with it. After one month, I was so disgusted with the OS as a whole, I backrevd my machine to XP and have been happy ever since.
I then within the past month purchased a Macbook Pro at my local apple store, and have been thrilled with how easy MAC OS X is to use, along with all the associated software products. I converted my XP machine to a VMware image, and now run it in Fusion to support IE and Visio. I've never been happier with a computer or platform until now... reminds me of when Win95 was released.
It is clear that MS has missed the boat, and that either XP will be built upon and support extended, or MAC OS X and Linux are going to begin to take even further mind and market share.
Lindsay Blanton
RadioReference.com
We've tried deploying vista in a corporate environment, but were forced to switch back running XP.
Our company uses 3D design software which has been certified "designed for windows vista" for almost a year now.
Only problem is, that the particular software doesn't work on vista! (business edition)
At SP0 level, the design program installs, but doesn't start.
We tried upgrading to latest SP4 version of the software, and now it doesn't even install properly.
After spending +40 hours trying to get it to work, the support team responded to our request and told us to forget
running on vista before next version which will be available somewhere 2Q2008.
Long story short.. We cannot deploy an operating system which disables us from doing our core business, 3d modelling and design.
Good thing we bought XP with volume licensing so we can freely switch our new workstations preloaded with vista back to XP
and actually get some work done.
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
Such nonsense... flame bait: rabble rousing.
I've been using this 'abysmal failure' as a primary OS for 8 months with nary a hitch. I really have. I spend every day developing various codes with various tools, for what turns out to be many different platforms. Among a few others I have a Debian box and OS X 10.4 within reach, on equally capable hardware and I don't even bother with them. To the point where I'll probably power them down to save money on the electric bill.
I suspect all the bad mouthing comes from people trying to shoehorn the thing into old hardware, or from people who fancy themselves capable with PC maintenance but can't handle simple configuration issues. Or most likely, by people who only ran a shoddy beta or have never run it at all. I'd really like someone to explain why the OS that I'm using right now without any problems doesn't work and should be abandoned.
oh, I know, not towing the party line here will get me modded down quick. but aside from the excited FOSS fanatics here and a few ad-hit grubbing bloggopundits and the like, millions of people are getting along just fine with vista. hopping up and down while shouting about what a failure it is doesn't actually make it a failure. sorry to break it to you all.
Well the headline (and summary, and article? Didn't RTFA yet) doesn't suggest that Microsoft should abandon Windows totally, only Vista. They could realistically retreat back to XP, backport any Vista features/improvements that are actually good, and start from there.
Honestly, I don't think the failure of Vista will come anywhere close to breaking Vista, but hopefully it will make hardware and software vendors question their strategy of only supporting Windows. If the future dominance of Windows is called into question, the developers may look to support other platforms instead. Then, hopefully, theoretically, you could have all the software you need running on Linux. In that case, Microsoft can still compete in the OS market, but they just won't be able to use vendor lock-in as such a huge barrier to switching to another OS.
Personally, I'd love to see vendors generally developing cross-platform solutions. Ideally, people should be able to choose their operating system on the strengths or weaknesses of that operating system, and not on the basis of what software it can run.
Here's a few choice quotes from a 2001 "Techspot" review of Windows XP. They may sound familiar...
On installation...
Let me start off by saying the installation of Windows XP is long. When I say long, I mean REAL long. It took me over an hour to install on either test system! On speed... Well now, how does it feel you ask? It feels incredibly slow on the first system. That might just be an understatement. It feels ridiculously slow. If your system specs look anything like my first system, or even a little better, Windows XP is going to depress you. To me, the speed thing is also a concern. The desktop moves a bit slower than a Win9x GUI, and there are still some worries about gaming performance.On native drivers...
One quick note, XP did have drivers for the GeForce 2 card, but came up empty handed for the classic Voodoo2.On whether to upgrade from Windows 98SE...
I really do not see a need to upgrade from Windows 98/ME. If you are building a new system, then by all means, install Windows XP. If you think that Windows XP is going to revolutionize the way you use a computer and surf the web, wake up and save your money.And as plenty of recent Slashdot posts supporting XP have shown, we all know how short sighted the last quote was.
As I said, we've been here before in 1991 with Windows XP yet Windows XP is now touted as Microsofts greatest OS. I expect the same will happen with Vista and be said about Vista when Microsoft releases it's next OS in a few years time.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
I was running Ubuntu for 4-5 months and it was an "OK" experience. Most things in the box worked right out of the box. With the notable exception of printer sharing.
The Open Source applications included by default did a good enough job. Many things not included but that could be installed with the package manager worked. Many others didn't, like Bluetooth support. I noticed that there were no application worth talking about when it came to doing anything multimedia. Even Myth-TV was a total disapointment with hundreds of megs to download (it needs a lot of extra junky software) and hours to setup.
And then I noticed how completely broken is sound mixing on Linux...
So I switched to Vista, the best OS the planet has ever seen.
Does Vista have any flaws? Probably. The Open Source zealots rip their shirts complaining about it. Maybe they hopelessely witness Linux disapearing in the shadow of Vista. Or maybe there's a basis to their whinning. Probably not the latter though sice they can't provide any example of what's bad with Vista that can't be easily brushed off..
Windows is about using applications. Linux is about enjoying the OS.
For 99.999% of people, and 100% of organizations, I recommend Vista. I don't recommend Linux.
Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents.
How many of you slashdolts who swing off of linux's nuts have actually tried it?
Its WAY better than WinMe for sure. Is it worth upgrading to? Not really, but its hardly crapware.
Its actually faster and smoother on decent hardware...the only probelms I have had with it are driver issues (blame lazy vendors) and UAC is a nightmare.
Overhyped? yes
needed? no
shitware? hardly.
oh wait, this is slashdot, where everything MS does is either evil, or poopy.
Well I will say that Vista has it's share of problems. It's a resource hog, it's slow, it's way too expensive, and it's just not a good OS. I am a firm believer in Linux, and run it on my machine at home. I would much prefer to ditch Windows all together but can't due to the limitations of WINE, like you had stated earlier. So my solution would be for the software manufacturers to either make cross platform software that runs on Windows and Linux, or just put out a copy for those of us that use Linux.
Linux is FREE, you don't have to shell out your life savings in order to get it and use it effectively. With Mac, you have to go out and buy a really expensive computer that won't do anything you want it to do and who's software library sucks. Windows is just too expensive for people to want to pay for, and is just a cumbersome OS period.
That's about all I have to say.
Their development libraries are much, much worse. To write an app that takes a frame from a video and saves it in a *.BMP file I had to download
1) Visual Studio (something like 2.5 gigs)
2) Windows SDK (another gigabyte); I need about 5 files from it (ten megabytes)
3) DirectX SDK (about 500 megs) - because DirectShow SDK was moved from DirectX to Windows SDK but still needs DirectX SDK to compile.
That's FOUR GIGABYTES just to use a couple of functions! Visual Studio can be replaced with some light compiler (like VC++ Express) but that's still an about 1.7 gigabytes total.
In Linux, GCC+Eclipse+Java+gstreamer-dev would be an about 200-300 megs download.
I'll fill in a few things:
1) Vista is fairly difficult to pirate. The draconian activation scheme has gotten fairly hard to avoid. Pirated copies show up on tons of home computers (really, who would spend $400 on an OS when you can buy a computer for that, or less!) and people learn the look, feel and use of the new OS.
2) People complained about 95, 98, ME (yech), 2K, XP. Except maybe for win95 everyone said "we're not upgrading ever". We did...because eventually developers and home users focused on the new OS. Business followed.
3) Corporate activation - MS continues to make it difficult to activate from a corporate perspective. Either use your key or build an activation server. Your key can get out in the wild and be shut down, forcing a re-keying of all your corporate PCs...OR you build an activation server and every PC has to check in EVERY 180 days. 181st day? LImited functionality mode...perfect for home users, eh?
Yeah, I reccomended holding off on deploying vista. How'd you guess?
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Even if it's not any worse than other Windows releases, it does seem to have gotten a bigger backlash than previous releases.
I've been working in IT and support Windows machines since WFW 3.11. I've gone through pretty much every version of Windows between then and now, and I agree, each transition has caused problems (well... except for 2000->XP and 95->98, neither of which hurt too much). However, I've never seen so many IT people generally pissed off about a Windows release, and so few that are enthusiastic about it.
It's not necessarily because it's worse or more buggy than previous Windows releases, but I get the sense that people are fed up. It's like, "Oh no. Not this shit again." After so many years and so many upgrades, having the same problems with each upgrade, people would like to see Microsoft learning from its mistakes and doing a better job anticipating the problems they're going to cause with the updates. Also, it seems like a lot of people are genuinely having problems with Microsoft products, but they've been having the same problems for over 10 years and none of the upgrades actually solve the problems.
I think people are just getting tired of it all, thinking that there should be better solutions by now. It was excusable when desktop PC were still considered novel and new. Now people want to be able to take the technology for granted, and Microsoft isn't doing a good job of filling that desire.
jeez.
That's not exactly a man's man.
I have heard (And said) the typical complaints against MS for many years, but something very unique is going on here.
This new Office suite was supposed to be revolutionary... but it's just TERRIBLE. It's so unintuitive, and its predecessors are simply far superior. I'm actually using Word 97 on my old desktop until I get around to replacing Office 07 on my laptop. And Vista is similarly awful. All these needless pretty effects are fine and dandy, I understand that people dig that stuff, but the system is simply less versatile than XP or Win 2000.
XP was a step up from Win 98. For all the complaints, the upgrade was worth real money. And Win 95 from Win 3.1 was also a tangible improvement.
MS has lost its mojo (little that it had).
I was actually jealous of a mac today. My Thinkpad deserves better. (yeah, I have ubuntu, but I have to use SharePoint at work).
being a "MS faithful" i will add that the article is trying to compare it to XP it seems. having been using vista since it's release and having zero problems other than a driver/security software issue that was HP's fault, i'd say it's pretty good. some things are a bit slower than XP on my machine and the hardware requirements are a bit out there, but i have seriously had no problems that i can blame MS for (the HP thing was that the software for the fingerprint reader made it take forever for windows to startup).
i do see some regular large memory usage, but that's mostly because i have firefox open all the time. the indexing/cache thing for the file system is always running (and can be turned off) and uses a lot of memory, but it gives it up whenever something else needs it.
i had 2 installations of vista... first was an upgrade, took about an hour (a lot of files had to be moved around to their new directories) and nothing went wrong. the second was a fresh install on the same computer (because i prefer it that way, but wanted to see the upgrade) and that took about 25 minutes, the fastest windows install i had ever seen.
i actually now prefer vista to XP and find it easier to use. no single application can crash all of windows. the networking stuff makes more sense (and it doesn't auto-save every wireless network i connect to). i like the new start menu and the search feature, and the UAC doesn't annoy me all that much as it only comes up when i install software or have to use the server 2003 admin pack. i am really not sure where all these people are getting their problems from, but i have had no issues and absolutely love it.
for the record, i have used linux (and plan on installing ubuntu on my home desktop that currently has XP) and OS X. i work in a primarily windows environment and have to support it, so i use that primarily (though i think i'll be getting a powerbook in the near future, but i'll be dual booting vista).
please me, have no regrets.
For that matter, you can install KDE or GNOME on top of Aqua if you prefer. If you'd rather not have the default gui, you can always go in and reconfigure things so you boot to a terminal or X instead of aqua. If you know your way around FreeBSD, OS X isn't too hard to figure out.
However, I use my Mac like an appliance and my PC as a hacking tool; I don't really care what's inside the Mac as long as it runs my GUI apps correctly and doesn't require a bunch of configuration.
Hopefully Racetrack Hard Drives will come along soon, and ease this bottleneck.
"The real problem is that CPU speeds have nearly flatlined."
MOD PARENT UP. The abuse of deliberately making an OS require far more power, so people would feel it was necessary to buy another computer, has become a much bigger abuse than it was before.
However, that's not the REAL problem. The real problem is just a misunderstanding. People think that Microsoft is a software company that is routinely abusive, but it isn't. Microsoft is an abuse company that merely uses software as a means of delivering abuse.
It is more abusive to not just deliver abuse in constant streams, but to deliver big booms of abuse, too, so that people can't learn as easily to defend themselves. So, DOS 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 BOOM, 2.1, 3.0 BOOM, 3.1, 4.0 BOOM, 5.0, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME BOOM, Windows NT first release BOOM. Windows 2000, Windows XP first release BOOM, Win XP SP1, Win XP SP2, Windows Vista BOOM.
Dr. Death has arrived. After only 3 years, requiem for an OS: Dr. Death is ready to begin killing software that customers want to use. He has decided that Windows XP will begin to die soon: January 31, 2008. The purpose is to make Bill Gates richer. Bill Gates can't invade Iraq, so he has to be happy with killing an operating system.
The huge number of bugs in Windows XP before SP2 was very expensive for us. If I remember correctly, Windows XP SP2 fixed more than 630 bugs, and some of the fixes were not documented. The really major problems in Windows XP stopped only after SP2 was released, on August 25, 2004. That means we have gotten only 3 years of good use from Windows XP.
Let other people have the grief. Unless forced by circumstances, never move to a new version of Microsoft software until the second service pack is released.
(Someone said that rule will just cause Microsoft to release service packs much more often. If that happens, it may be necessary to change the rule to "until the X service pack...")
Even though updating Windows XP from an SP2 CD requires downloading more than 170 Megabytes of files, Microsoft hasn't delivered a service pack for Windows XP in 3 years. The Windows XP updates of just August's Patch Tuesday were more than 20 Megabytes. Microsoft seems to have delayed releasing an SP3 for Windows XP to try to discourage people from using Windows XP.
New versions of Linux are released to make a better OS. New versions of Microsoft Windows seem to have the purpose of 1) killing the old version and 2) using more CPU power so that it is necessary to buy new hardware. When you partner with Microsoft, you partner with a company that may sometimes choose to be your enemy, in my opinion.
It is not only the vulnerabilities that are expensive. Microsoft's adversarial behavior is expensive, too.
Some of this may be a joke, and some of it may be the truth.
Perhaps Vista is Microsoft's new coke and is intended to fail miserably. But it still forces application developers to adhere to stricter security guidelines (if they want their app to run for non-administrative roles).
.NET, chock-full of DRM and with a brand-new security model (that third-parties now adhere to thanks to being dragged kicking and screaming into Vista compatibilty). Wouldn't it be the same sort of brilliance that Coke had? Just like Coke, had they simply made the change they wanted to make, there would be a huge controversy and MS would eventually be forced to backtrack to maintain compatibility with the old XP. But if they "bring back XP" with some extensive under-the-covers fixes and security improvements, they get closer to the day when they won't be considered a laughing stock when it comes to security.
Then, by popular demand, they bring back XP only it isn't the XP that people have grown accustomed to, it's XP re-written entirely in
So perhaps, just like New Coke, Vista is also intended to fail miserably but ultimately change the Windows landscape in a way that could not have been done by an incremental change in XP.
It's even possible to run Halo 2 in XP...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_2#Windows_XP_compatibility
http://www.mininova.org/tor/763563
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
...the competition from Windows XP. Right now (allmost a year after launch) the only real reason for upgrade is DirectX 10, and it seems that the gaming industry can't see any idea in changing to DirectX 10.
But it's being bundled with home computers, and your average Joe is NOT going to know about the problems. If he's lucky, he may have a friend who recommends staying with XP for now. But for many, many people, they'll just buy 'the whole thing' from PC World and be running Vista.
I used to think the same thing.
"Vista sucks, but it'll eventually be the standard, once everyone buys a new computer from dell/hp/whoever and it comes with vista."
~Wx
sig?
If your trying to intercept directx video streams, then use it requires a bunch of crap since you are ... building a ... directx application. You want to integrate with a large complex API, expect large complex dependencies.
You can use the free MS c++ compiler and avoid the entire VS download, now you've cut off over 2 gigs of your download size. Don't confuse you're lack of knowledge about one set of tools with your more in depth knowledge of another set of tools.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
it was just a GUI
So was Windows 95, and 98, but everyone stilled considered those OS's.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
It is. Nothing beats well placed debugging printfs
and asserts.
"complexity" + error and trial programming + coding with the
debugger is the perfect recipe for desaster.
To those who'd like to know how this is done: You'll find the source code for the 'hack' here. Be aware though that it relies on an older version of the Windows SDK and you'll need to tweak a header file or two, but you'll find all the missing details in the h2vista thread (as well as a bit of noise).
The problem is with Microsoft's development processes. Its ineffiency bloats the operating system and bogs down the speed and quality of the development. Moving on to a new operating system will result in the 'same' product.
.NET was not initially created to be what it is today. It grew naturally and started to fit more roles into development of both server and client technologies that Microsoft ever predicted. That's a good example of great Microsoft technology.
It's the management. A good part of their programmers are really talented. But top level management makes the strategy around the business effect they want (better lock-in, succumbing to Hollywood's DRM demands, trying to out-flash OSX etc.).
Then developers have to match the faulty business plan by turning it into a product. Doesn't work this way. Sometimes, Microsoft puts up technologies down-up, and this is where they shine. It's easy to tell apart both of those.
Office 2007 is also another great example of a product well done (now we know there are some bugs to be worked out, but they're definitely working on it). The productivity gain and ease of use for those willing to spend 2-3 hours retraining themselves are amazing. It's the first time I could say I love my Office software.
Visual Studio is amazing development platform. Microsoft trusts their developers there, since it's software by developers for developers.
Counter examples include ironically OOXML. It was rushed and served pure business purpose, so developers put no heart in it. They just serialized the aging DOC binary format and the results are catastrophic (for something that wants to be a "standard").
Another counter example is Windows itself. They have amazing set of technologies in Vista which are horribly assembled and misused in attempt to create a product matching Microsoft's business agenda.
Microsoft have already abandoned Vista, they canceled their huge marketing campaign for a much more down-beat one, and they allowed people to downgrade to XP. That's what you can expect most from them in this situation.
No-one's denying for one minute that the visibility of Linux may be low because of it still being a minority on the desktop, but Linux has had a huge impact on displacing commercial UNIX systems like HP-UX and Solaris in the server space - not to mention in the embedded space also.
I myself work for a fairly major US-owned telecoms equipment supplier and the move to Linux-based platforms away from those based on commercial UNIXes and, to a smaller degree, Windows is truly startling.
Just because you cannot see it does not mean it isn't there...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Now, the summary makes Vista sound like it's slower than XP, and it simply isn't. I have a dual boot XP and Vista, and Vista is actually way faster than XP for starting up and the first few essential apps (firefox, mail, winamp etc). I'm using Vista as my main OS now, the XP install is very bare, and still I'm watching the hourglass for 30 seconds or so before any app becomes runnable in a meaningful way.
The only difference in hardware is the dedicated 4gb SDHC card I have for readyboost, but I guess overall Vista's caching and preloading really does have an effect.
Sure, it's different. Why would I pay $250 for Vista Business and expect they same? I have years of tuning into my 600 XP stations. GPO's, ZenApps, et al. I'm going to have to invest some time getting my network ready for Vista.
But so far most things work, or there are work arounds to get them working. iSeries Access V5R4 works. My VB 6 apps work. My legacy imaging system, which we bought in 1991 and uses an ancient bTrieve database & DDE still works. My new imaging system works. Zenworks 10 works.
Sure, I don't want to be prompted 5 times when I change an INI in %windir%. But I can change that setting.
The same FUD was being said about XP when it came out. Many praised Windows 2000. I run both today and think XP is much better (workstation PRO editions.) I'm sure there will be a learning curve for Vista, as there always is. And I'm sure I'll like it even more than XP once I pass that curve.