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.'"
How fucking dare anyone out there make fun of Vista after all it has been through?
Its sales are flagging. Leopard made Steve Ballmer mad. He threw two fucking chairs.
Mr. Mischief turned out to be a blogger, and now he's posting stories to slashdot. All you people care about is quality and usability.
It's a version of Windows! What you don't realize is that Vista is just being Windows and all you do is write a bunch of crap about it.
Microsoft hasn't made a good OS in years. It prefixes everything with "Win" because all you people care about is WINNING! WINNING! WINNING!
LEAVE IT ALONE! You are lucky it even boots you bastards! LEAVE VISTA ALONE!
Please!
Don Reisinger talked about professionalism and said if Steve Ballmer was a professional he would've shouted "developers" a few more times.
Speaking of professionalism, when is it professional to publicly bash an operating system who is going through a hard time?
Leave Vista alone, please.
LEAVE VISTA ALONE RIGHT NOW. I MEAN IT.
Anyone that has a problem with it you deal with me, because it is not well right now.
LEAVE IT ALONE!
Windows ME anyone?
Don't ditch it. There's no need to ditch it altogether. Release a "second edition" a la Win98, give some options to reduce bloat, work with major hardware manufacturers to make useful drivers, and work on general compatibility (back and forward). Then re-release the OS to praise and thanks.
Make it a logical step from XP so that companies needn't retrain their employees.
So, they may *outlast* Vista.
And, for a fraction of the cost.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Why do so many people ignore the often-cited reason for not switching to Vista? DRM is invasive, restrictive, and ridiculous. Hard-core gamers went vista ASAP, much like file-sharers who got it for free. The universal response was either that they hated it, or that they didn't see an improvement.
I've had to trouble shoot computers with it on there. I repeatedly found myself wondering why they had changed things that were so simply on XP to be so complicated on Vista.
Microsoft won't "drop" Vista, any more than they "dropped" their most horrible other operating system - Windows ME *cringe*. They'll just move on. They've already wrote the system. They'll keep updating it. The real question - the critical one - is how long they will support XP. They'll need to continue to support XP until they get a system out that is an actual improvement, and not just a corporate-ass kissing piece of crap.
I'm a linux sysadmin. For work reasons (stupid software only runs under windows) I need to run Windows on my office desktop. I'm running XP here, Vista on my laptop, and Vista on one of my machines at home. Personally, I don't see what the problem with it is. Yeah, some stuff works a bit differently and things aren't in the places I'm used to seeing them, but on the whole it's not *that* bad. I'd take it over WinME any day.
The problem is not the operating system itself. 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. Think about it... telling the development team of Duke Nukem Forever to move onto Duke Nukem Whenever will not result in an expedited, improved, or actualized product.
From my limited perspective, it appears to me that Microsoft tries too hard to be everything to everyone. Other operating systems do not follow this plan. What you end up with is audio drivers slowing down network performance and a whole lot of feature bloat. Whereas I'm a FreeBSD/Mac OS X fan through-and-through, I have to admit Microsoft wouldn't be where they are if they didn't have decent product. It's just unfortunate to see them getting 'a little big for their britches.'
I'm sure we're just heading into something of a reform in the world of operating systems. I think that Vista is going to be just one of many casualties of competition. In the end, I feel the users will win.
I really don't get the point of these commentaries. Yes, Vista is a bit of a dog's breakfast. Yes, companies aren't rushing out to buy it en masse.
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.
Like a lot of things Microsoftish, it may not be a running success out-the-door (Zune, Xbox), but it'll slowly get a foothold until more and more people start using it. Vista is here to stay folks, and in five-or-so years, it'll be the dominant OS. Microsoft won't support XP forever.
(Posted on a Mac mini!)
This article doesn't make any sense.
Microsoft can't be sunk by people choosing XP over Vista. Those people are still paying for a Microsoft OS. Congratulations, you've decided to give Microsoft money instead of giving Microsoft money.
A lot of things could someday sink Microsoft. People choosing to buy one of their products won't be it.
(Unless one of those products somehow combusted and burned down a pack of orphanages, resulting in worse publicity and lawsuits.)
Guy goes to an astrologer and he looks at the horoscope, does lots of calculations and says, "Jupiter is in the same House as Saturn. And Saturn will stay in that House for 7.5 years. All through that 7.5 years, you will have misery and misfortune. Your wife will leave you. Your son will usurp your house and throw you out. You will lose all your wealth and fall sick. You will be miserable for 7.5 years."
The guy, visibly disturbed asks, "What happens after 7.5 years when Saturn moves out of the House of Jupiter?"
The astrologer shrugged and said, "You will be used to the misery."
Same way, in three years the miserable performance of Vista will be defined to be industry standard fast tracked and approved by ISO and users will use 4GB of RAM to browse the internet.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
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."
It's just cobbled together CE, ME, and NT versions with a new GUI. Though, they could of stuck with the first name... Windows CEMENT... Would of been far more accurate.
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
I doubt Microsoft will take Don Reisinger up on his suggestion, if for no reason other than sheer arrogance.
Companies kill me, it's a corporate lifecycle that we see again and again, and very few seem to learn from it. Once a company gets so big, it gets it in its head that it's invulnerable. It thinks that it can do anything it wants, and people will flock to it because it's the latest and greatest offering from the King of the (Whatever).
We see it now with Microsoft and Vista. We're also seeing it from Sony on its Playstation 3. Sony thought, "Of course people will buy the Playstation 3. It's a Playstation, for crying out loud!" Anyone remember when Hayes thought that they had the modem market locked up tight? Or when IBM didn't treat clones as serious competitors?
Usually, companies like this end up either going out of business, or at least eventually become relegated back down into the fray because they stop asking themselves, "What do our customers want?" and become totally focused on "What do we want?
I see the same thing happening before too long with Apple and its iPods and even Google, which as recently announced that it's going to start running image and video ads and plastering ads on its YouTube videos. Once a company starts thinking about its own interests over that of its customers, it's the beginning of the end of that company's dominance.
Of course, who knows? They might eventually pull a Nintendo. Go into a slump for a few years, learn from their mistakes, and come back out swinging. Historically, though, that is rare, and we are talking about Microsoft here.
You know, the last time Microsoft rolled out an operating system that was a complete market flop, the developer had to marry Bill Gates.
There are worse fates for a failed project's lead, I guess.
So the question now is: is Steve Ballmer single, or will he just take on a mistress?
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
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.
The real fact of the matter from those of us that use Vista everyday is that fact that it works just fine. My games play the same or better than they did in XP, my development tools run just fine, and the UI for once is actually nice to work with. Now call me crazy, but I don't find Vista bad at all.
As a software developer myself I realize the fact that OS's are large and complicated and they all have some issues. I use Linux, I use OS X, and I use Vista. Each has their own merits and their own problems. The problem is that now, just like it was popular in the 80s and 90s to hate IBM, its popular to hate Microsoft. News writers see this as a bandwagon they can use to get articles read and website hits. The real fact is that Vista has no more problems than any other OS at this point in its life cycle.
I truly wish that for the good of all of the tech industry, people would see that every piece of software, and every OS has its place. Vista does a lot of things well... It just happens to have a few flaws and a few "features" that just seem to go against the grain of the most vocal people in the geek world (i.e. DRM) and thus we see articles like this that are ridiculous and inflammatory simple for being as such.
Didn't we go through this same issue when Windows XP first came out in 2001? I remember back then you needed 512 MB to make it run decently fast, and the "sweet spot" was 1 GB of RAM (both of which were not that common back in 2001).
The problem with Windows Vista is that the hardware has not yet completely caught up with the potential of the OS. Just wait till 2008, when machines with 4 GB or more of RAM become more commonly available and graphics cards that support DirectX 10 are more widely available.
Except the same joke was already used today in another MS article. By the same AC? Who knows . . .
Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
That's not to say that Microsoft couldn't suffer losses in this generation, but it would be more about the presence of strong alternatives than their failure to adopt a 'move on' strategy.
What's really interesting about this /particular/ FUDy article is how quibbly it is. He appears to have three major complaints: the pricing scheme, specifically of the Ultimate edition, the UAC(and specifically, that it doesn't like a specific unnamed third party app which we're assured is from a 'well-known software company'), and DRM. We're not talking about blue screens and security holes here.
There is no compelling reason to move to Vista, and it seems obvious that waiting for SP1 is probably the right move for anyone who wants to upgrade. That doesn't mean that this OS won't succeed, however, and it's shown marked improvement on many counts since launch. Can we just call this FUD and "move on"?
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
Maybe if Microsoft spent more time on stuff (that people actually _use_ you know), instead of fluff, maybe Vista would actually be half decent.
- A way to customize the File Open dialog box, with the folders you constantly use, gasp!?
- Expose. Enough said.
- A built in spell checker / Dictionary / Thesaurus, with quick access to wikipedia
- A search that isn't broken (Thx WinXP!)
- The ability to re-locate, (or hide) the dam 'close' button
- Title bars that stop sucking up valuable screen space, instead of being small movable tabs like in BeOS
- Virtual Desktops
- An OS that gets FASTER from version to version (again BeOS)
- A proper KILL command -- I'm admin on the dam box, let me kill that process.
- Unified widgets/gadgets: NO, I don't want seperate run-times for Yahoo, Google, Apple, Microsoft, insert flavor of the month company because they decided to do their own implementation.
- A home folder without spaces that doesn't move with almost every version of windows.
- A file system that doesn't suck. YES, I want to be able to start my filenames with spaces for sorting purposes (Thx Explorer. NOT.) have my filenames contain colons, end with a period or question mark. And treat the underscore as a virtual space, so we don't have to quote filenames in our command scripts. A way to "tag" files, so I can visually see BOTH a heirarchy, AND flat filesystem.
- Config files that can be moved from system to system instead of hiding everything in the bloated registry
- Free dev tools would be nice.
- Stop rebooting my dam system everytime you update system software. Or at least give me notification/icon that a reboot is required BEFORE installing.
All I want is an OS that doesn't suck... is that _really_ too much for a programmer to ask?
The real problem is that CPU speeds have nearly flatlined. Making a new more bloated OS on the assumption that CPU speeds will offset the slowdown is yesterday(7 years ago?)'s development model. Moore's law still holds for a while but it will result in more cores and memory rather than a significant per-cpu speed increase.
It sounds to me like the creators of the software you need to use have no clue how to write software for a multi-user environment.
... right? This "admin to install, guest to use" is nothing new to the world. It's been doable on Microsoft products since NT.
Drivers and kernel aside, Vista changed one huge thing: through UAC, people can no longer write files to Program Files.
It's shocking how many programs did this in the first place. Almost every game in existence writes saves to their folder in program files. For work, I'm forced to maintain 10-15 different programs which allow the users to view "documents" (that's an entirely different story) - and half of them copy the file from the temp folder, to another temp folder... in Program Files.
Vista is trying to be secure. And, if you run Vista and Vista only, it is secure. Other big Microsoft products (MSSQL, Office, Visual Studio) all run happily - as a guest user. Admin to install, guest to use.
Sound familiar? It should. This is slashdot. We all use Linux, right?
So Microsoft comes around and says, "you know, enough of this, we're going to make the OS stable by preventing unauthorized programs from writing files where it shouldn't" - and everything dies. Dies horribly.
Microsoft has many sins upon their heads, in the software realm. However, countless program incompatibilities because software designers have no clue what "multi user" really is - is not Microsoft's (direct) fault. Vista was in beta for an extended period of time. Then they pushed an open beta. It's not like they made these changes behind closed doors and shipped it.
The day that the complaints will stop is the same day that the third party developers get a clue how to design a program around the fact that they can't always write files everywhere they please.
It could be a while.
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.
Win2k, which you left out, was easily the best MS product ever. Could (still can) play games as well as XP, more secure, no activation, near zero DRM, fewer bugs, less memory usage, etc.
I just started a new job for a non-IT company and the standard issue monitor is a 15" Dell LCD locked at a max of 1024x768 resolution.
To make matters worse, they were recently upgraded to Office 2007.
At such a *low* resolution, with all the fancy eye-candy they have added, there is a little tiny window in the center of the monitor where I can actually see what I'm working on. There is so much wasted space (i.e., a 1/4" bar that says "Click here to enable Instant Search") that there is hardly any room to get any work done. It almost feels like I'm trying to view a document on a PocketPC or something... To make matters worse, I'm a touch typist and seldom use the mouse for something like Print Preview (Alt-F-V in the past) and now when I try to do that, it pops up a dialog telling me that I'm about to Convert my document instead of Preview it. Thanks, Microsoft, thanks a lot!
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
Ever wonder why no one seems to appreciate your insightful long form commentary? Maybe its because 3 lines into a 50 line text block their eyes glaze over and they hit the back key. Paragraphs are your friend - not something to be avoided.
Reading a text block like that is the visual equivelant of listening to those sped up caveats they spit out at the end of car commercials - their must be something in there...but who the hell knows, I stopped paying attention 8 words in.
I've been running Windows XP for about four years now, and it has been an "OK" experience. Most things in the box worked right out of the box, with the notable exception of networking with other operating systems, but that got better as time went on. Games were the high point of the Windows experience. The less said about Microsoft Office the better.
There were few applications included with the operating system, really almost none. Many things not included were expensive to buy, and some didn't work well at all. I noticed that there were no applications worth talking about when it came to doing anything involving video editing that didn't crash the machine. And even playing a DVD required me to spend an extra $60 on WinDVD.
And then I noticed how completely broken the security is on Windows XP.
So I switched to Linux, the best OS the planet has ever seen.
Does Linux have any flaws? Probably. But Microsoft is in a panic over it. Maybe they're afraid that Windows will disappear in the shadow of Linux. So they've been conducting a FUD campaign for some time now, using a stalking horse named SCO. But that horse broke a leg recently, and will soon be humanely put to sleep.
Windows is about having to spend endless hours of your time applying security patches, scanning for malware and sometimes restoring the entire operating system when it glitches. Linux is about enjoying your computer.
For most people and organizations, I recommend Linux. I don't recommend Windows.
(Aw, heck, I couldn't help myself...)
--
Microsoft alleges that Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents. I say put up, or shut up.
"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.
Speaking as a Perl developer, a JScript developer, an IT professional, and a kiosk developer, I now adore the Microsoft corporate assistance, as well as Vista.
The article is question -- and boy is it questionable -- says things like "vista is too expensive" and "it sales are lower than xp's were". Welcome to economics. Just because you lack the funds, doesn't make it a bad thing.
As a business, I've had wonderful times with Microsoft licensing over the last six months. Where I thought I'd have to pay $300 per kiosk, I wound up having to pay $200 one-time licence. Umm, that's basically free.
I'm using both XP and Vista for the kiosks. XP is missing a number of features that Vista has perfectly --
all on the IT side.
I've been reading slashdot for well over a decade now. You guys have it all wrong. Windows is much more flexible than you give it credit for -- and all without having to re-compile a kernel. Absolutely every OS tweak and alteration is possible just as simply as changing a registry key. And each and every one is well named and documented. Just start reading.
Deploying a few hundred configurations is a breeze -- as easy as plugging in a UFD.
There are more tools, support, documentation, and details available for Microsoft's corporate professional solutions than Linux users have all but hoped for. And when they aren't free of charge, they are impressively within budget.
Sorry that your budget is absolute zero. Some of us actually operate successful businesses, and simply love the idea of spending one dollar to make ten. Spending zero to make ten is actually worse, not better. And spending half a dollar to make ten isn't significantly better than spending one.
Do something legitimate, with actual business intentions, and Microsoft is a dream to work with. Want to do something all on your own? That's a different story.
I have no problems with Vista. And any problems that you have with any features, are easily solved by disabling those features. I can't believe that linux users are upset with a default configuration -- freakin' change it. The only difference is that you aren't starting from scratch. You're capable, just do it. And if you do it for someone else, they'll pay you for it.
And no, you don't have to want to get paid. And no, they won't be paying you for your time, or your skill, or your abilities. They'll be paying you for the sole reason of not having to do it themselves. Welcome to the wonderful world of profitable business -- you don't do anything by yourself.
How fucking dare anyone out there make fun of Anonymous Coward after all they have been through?
Anonymous Coward hasn't made a good post in years. They begin everything with "fp" because all you people care about is FIRST POST! FIRST POST! FIRST POST!
LEAVE THEM ALONE! You are lucky they even chose to post here you bastards! LEAVE ANONYMOUS COWARD ALONE!
Please!
Speaking of professionalism, when is it professional to publicly bash a human being who is going through a hard time?
Leave Anonymous Coward alone, please.
LEAVE ANONYMOUS COWARD ALONE RIGHT NOW. I MEAN IT.
Anyone that has a problem with them, you deal with me, because it is not well right now.
LEAVE THEM ALONE!
In Soviet Russia, joke repeats you.
Sorry. Force of habit.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.