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.'"

Comments

Vista is less important than Bill Gates...

[Jennifer York]

Losing the leadership of Bill is actually the devastating blow. Perhaps Vista is the result of his taking a less hands on role over the past year... When you lose the leader you change the face of the company.

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...

Re:Huh? worst start?

[Thyrteen]

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.

How Software Companies Die

[lobiusmoop]

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 backrevd

[blantonl]

Folks,

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. ..and in the IT Consulting community, the cache of owning a MB Pro is really taking hold.

It's disaster

[Keruo]

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.

sigh

[MOMOCROME]

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.

Re:sigh

[Etrias]

My company foisted Vista on me because we thought market penetration was going to be higher and we had to learn the system to support it. A "for the clients" thing, and being intrigued and seeing what we do is support IT for our clients, sounded like a good idea.

I think I'm going to have to go with the "abysmal failure" part of your essay. And this isn't on old hardware. Brand spanking new T60 Thinkpad stacked with RAM and video.

I have to say that Vista gives me more time in the morning...while I'm waiting for it to boot, never a problem with my XP box. At least I have time now to get coffee while the damn thing loads up after I log in. The general feeling in the office is to wipe the new laptops and put XP back on to it so we can get our functionality back.

So, I'm not speaking without experience. Networking was a pain, drivers were an issue, security was a pain, performance was terrible...and for what? A sidebar? New user interfaces and every system tool moved somewhere else? Gah, Vista is a dog.

Re:Freaking flamebait articles.

[nine-times]

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.

Is it 2001 again?

[Computershack]

Is it 2001 again? I'm pretty certain that exactly the same mutterings were made about XP when it was first released. Oh yeah...they were.

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.

Re:Freaking flamebait articles.

[nine-times]

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.

Re:Real problem

[Clanked]

Hopefully Racetrack Hard Drives will come along soon, and ease this bottleneck.

It's all just a misunderstanding.

[Futurepower(R)]

"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.

Re:It's all just a misunderstanding.

[kklein]

Yikes. Well said, even if some of it was kidding on the square.

The problem, however, isn't that MS is a mean company (it is) that makes bad products (well--bad OSes. I can't believe how much I love my Xbox 360, and I've never even been tempted to buy a console before). The problem is that so many of us need their OSes to do our jobs. There really is very little most people can do about it. Linux really isn't an option for most people, and for a considerable number, OSX really isn't either.

The new Macs are the only threat I see, being that they can now boot Windows natively. I have a Mac laptop now, because I can still run my critical Windows apps either natively or in emulation (I haven't noticed any speed difference between the two, but games require a native reboot), and this has caused me to begin to loathe XP, whereas I used to be ambivalent. The Intel move is the smartest thing Apple has ever done.

Similarly, what may make Linux a viable option (provided drivers for people's hardware actually existed and worked), and which would give me pause, would be someone like VMware entering the fray with a desktop-class emulator like Fusion for OSX (which is what I use and which is awesome, BTW) on Linux. I've been accused of trolling about Linux's lack of viability 'round these parts, but really, until people can run the programs they really actually run (hint: MS Office isn't the only program people run) in a Linux environment, it's just going to live at the sysadmin level, and at the sysadmin's home computer level. A workhorse or a toy (as something of a statistician--don't tell a real statistician that I said that, though--I would like to head off any comments of "but I use it and I'm not a sysadmin" with a word of caution about generalizing from small N sizes, statistical outliers, and self-selected populations).

I'd happily reformat my desktop and put on Ubuntu (which I find slick and intuitive--though I suppose that has more to do with the Gnome folks than the Ubuntu folks, but still) if I could still use my Windows apps without a reboot (I'm open to a reboot for games)... Provided, that is, that I could get the nVidia drivers to work this time...

Re:It's all just a misunderstanding.

[AmaDaden]

I would have totally agreed with you a year ago, But Ubuntu is a massive improvement from other Linux distros. Except for games I've been able to entirely replace my windows install. I've not once had to go out and muck about in the console or installing software on my own. I've used the package manager (think "add and remove programs" but it actually can find and install new programs) about 100 times now to install many cool little apps. They have not all worked they way I wanted but most of them would not have been possible with out hours of trolling freeware sites installing and uninstalling software that would wreak havoc on my PC. I can honestly say that my time using Ubuntu was FAR less painful then using XP. Just my 2 cents

Re:It's all just a misunderstanding.

[Koiu Lpoi]

Windows only "works" because it has a huge market share, and thus has vendor support. It really doesn't "just work" out of the box, and (Vista) runs horribly slow on anything but the best computers.

And about "ease of use", "no fiddling with config files" and lets you "develop art/applications/websites with some of the best tools in the world", well, you described Mac OS X to a Tee. It's a great OS, works exactly how it's supposed to out of the box, and has the best, most intuitive "ease of use" of anything on the market. And it's What You Use if you're in the arts.

I'm not even going to cover Linux, as I believe it truly has no place on my Grandmother's desktop computer, and probably enver will. Ubuntu has made it far better, but it still fails the Grandma test (at last check).

I bet this post will get me marked as a Mac fanboy. Guess what? I'm not. Probably won't ever own a Mac - I personally really don't like ease of use (I'm weird).

Also, as a second point, supposed physical superiority (aka e-Penis) really has nothing to do with this disucssion, so please leave it out. It only espouses your ignorance even more by spouting a (quite possibly wrong) stereotype.

Re:It's all just a misunderstanding.

[fractoid]

He's not on crack. He just hasn't used Linux for years. Back in 2004, last time I tried Linux (it was Mandrake somethingorother) I couldn't even get it to recognize my video card. I gave up rapidly, went "life is too short", and installed XP. I kept that picture of Linux as "something that's good if you have a spare week to set it up in and don't mind eternally tinkering with files and reading newsgroups full of elitist pricks" until about three months ago when my dodgy onboard RAID cracked the shits, and I decided to try Ubuntu Feisty out.

And since then, I've found out just how much better Linux can be than XP - it recognized all my hardware out of the box (no f**king around installing a floppy drive so I can get the SATA drivers going), took like 30 minutes to install, 'just works' at everything I want it to (WoW, intarwebs, IM, movies/TV eps, some document editing/spreadsheeting) and has better eye candy than Vista (yay Beryl!). It also doesn't cost me $200+, it doesn't insist on phoning home, and I know that if Ubuntu Co. dies or decides they want me to upgrade to some PoS, I can just keep using it instead of needing activation codes or cracks.

Really, there isn't any way Vista could be better for my uses.

Halo 2 runs in XP anyway

[rbarreira]

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