Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7's Media Hype Having the Opposite Effect As Vista's
Death Metal Maniac tips an Ars Technica piece suggesting that the media's coverage of Vista's flaws portrayed the operating system as worse than it was, and, if early reports on Windows 7 are any indication, positive hype will create the opposite reaction this time around. Quoting: "... the problem is exaggeration; ... bloggers and journalists alike use their personal experiences to prove their point in their writing. The blame doesn't solely lie with us, as Vista was by no means perfect, but we did manage to amplify the problems beyond reason. And if the beta is anything to go by, Windows 7 is going to fly. This is, by far, the best beta operating system the software giant has ever released. The media has locked on to this, and is using exaggeration already, before Windows 7 is even ready for prime time." Apparently a decent beta can succeed where $300 million and Jerry Seinfeld failed.
but we did manage to amplify the problems beyond reason.
No you didn't. And yes, I've had to use Vista.
If you can read this sig, congratulations, you have your glasses on!
Call me troll, but I've seen several sub-par products that sold well on hype alone. Windows 7 will do just fine, whether it's any good or not.
At least Microsoft's marketing department is doing its job right this time.
Windows zealots will have to try very hard to convince me that I need Windows 7. As it stands now, I will not touch it even with a 10 foot pole. Windows XP works and works quite well for me. I plan to ditch it for KDE 4.2 when it comes out though.
IT people killed Vista, and I see no reason why they will be any happier with Win7. I have talked to dozens of industry people, from the guys who network mom & pop shops to guys who run databases for Fortune 100 companies, and NONE of them wanted anything to do with Vista. Their complaints were that it was entirely too dependent on internet connectivity, it was totaly different and therefore a major hassle to integrate with their existing network infrastructure and to maintain at the user level, and could not be locked down in a corporate environment properly. Win7 is a finger in the eye to these people -- it doesn't even have Classic mode any more. I've only spoken to a couple of them since Win7 was introduced but they aren't impressed.
And it is a truism from the days of Dos 2.0 that people do prefer to use at home what they use at work. When the tech friends they depend on to fix what they can't insist they run XP, they will insist on XP. Office and Word became popular not because they're all that good but because people brought them home and became comfortable with them there.
This has all come down to a giant Mexican standoff between Microsoft, which wants to determine how your computer looks and acts, and corporate IT types who want to determine those things. (As for you determining those things, that ship has sailed; the end of Classic mode tells that tale.) The IT guyes will not give up their control. Microsoft has obviously dug in their heels. It is not clear to me how this will end, but from what I have seen it will not end with widespread Win7 on the corporate desktop.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
What alternative is there? You can't stay on XP forever - eventually support will go away, patches will stop, fire and blood will rain from the skies, etc. Eventually, IT will have to move to a new OS, and the odds are that OS will be Win 7 or whatever chunk of crap MS is peddling that year. It's still more compelling for business users than any alternative.
You could move to the Mac, but then you need all new software and you need to completely retrain your staff. Same thing for Linux. So you can move to Win 7 - where you can at least expect some of your software to continue working. Developers can keep cranking out crap in VisualStudio (which is a shitty fucking IDE, whatever it's cadre of loyal adherents say about it), executives can continue using Outlook and schedule meetings with each other, your shitty ActiveX control laden intranet will work without changes (MS is never, ever, ever, gonna give that shit up if they can help it).
I guess the question is "is it too little too late?" M$ lost quiet alot of their userbase to Apple & Linux, will they get those users to switch back for Windows 7?? The sad thing is that this release is just M$ playing catch up with other platforms packed with things they should have done a long time ago, if you compare it with other platforms it doesn't actually offer anything revolutionary in the core of the OS. did it ever??
If you create an operating system and purposely make it to annoy the users, what do you think you'll get?
Assuming you're talking about UAC, then you'll get a more secure and only slightly more annoying operating system. That was actually one of the things I liked about Vista, though it could have been implemented better. What killed it for me is how bloated and sluggish it is.
The thing about UAC is that it doesn't make it more secure if all you have to do is press allow, users will just click allow each time because it requires no effort
That's a dumb argument. I still slice bread with knife, a technology which has been around for thousands of years - I could move to spiffy new computer controlled laser system, but why? It's expensive, both to acquire and replace, it's more work to service, and it doesn't get me much.
So what if the technology is old? Why is the new technology any better? What is the new technology that Win7 introduces that makes it so much better than XP? You don't mention it in your post.
That doesn't address all the other stuff - software that you can still reuse, stuff with an upgrade path to new version. It's still far cheaper to move to a newer windows than a completely different OS for most businesses.
Believe me, I'd love to see MS lose it's market position, but it's probably not gonna happen because people refuse to move to Win7.
After the shit sandwich that was Windows Vista anything can look like a winner. Microsoft could have repackaged Windows 2000 and the technobloggers would have gone nuts how stable and clean it was.
I have friends who will run out of breath arguing how Vista is perfect and has gotten a bad rap due to vast Apple/Media conspiracy to spread rumors and undermine the OS. It's nearly impossible to convince them otherwise. Every objection is met by sarcastic remarks like "LOL MIKKKRO$OFT AM I RITE?!" and the like. You're either an Apple kool-aid drinker or a Linux zealot if you don't submit to Microsoft's talking points on how amazing their latest Windows is.
Soon after Windows 7 Betas appeared and couple of high-status media degenerates started hyperventilating about how perfect the OS was, every Vista evangelist suddenly came out and openly distanced themselves from Vista.
I can bet you lots of money that all these Windows 7 superfans will turn on it as soon as Microsoft pre-announces Windows 8.
>Is it as quick as running XP? Well, no, but don't forget that XP is a seven-year-old operating system that required a Pentium II at release.
You see I don't get this comment. Since the operating system 7 years ago had to run on much slower hardware, well, don't expect that now?
WHY F***G NOT! What on earth does an operating system have to do so that it sucks up ever bit of my quad core machine?
Here is the irony. Superfetch... Superfetch makes my programs faster to load and run. Well, are they counting the time that superfetch takes away while I work?
Oh yes, I remember, it runs in the background. Yes, that's right background if you count not moving your mouse or keyboard. BUT you see I write trading systems, and have traders, and they actually don't move their mouse or keyboard. Guess what thinks, it is ok to startup run, and cycle through a terrabyte of data? Yes anything that should run in the background!
I would actually like a faster operating system! I have a hate list of Vista, and not a single thing has changed in Windows 7! Windows 7 is literally putting lipstick on a pig!
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Erm, runas? It's been around since forever. Though I'd agree that the post-Vista security model is half-assed, nonsensical, and often completely broken. Turn off UAC and everything's happy again.
ANY post that is even mildly criticizing of vista is modded down. another marketing strategy by m$oft ? like, release in-house fanbois to fight for the product ? maybe that is why 7 is getting good reviews.
Read radical news here
and they hell shouldnt.
they are being paid to make sure that the it infrastructure that their company works on works AS the company wants it, and in the fashion company wants it.
not microsoft.
no company can accept an outside company dictating it, networking and security procedures within their own network. its actually unbelievable that we're even discussing this.
Read radical news here
The real reason Vista really failed is the same people who are hyping up 7, the media.
Vista changed the way drivers needed to be written for security reasons, and because hardware vendors suck at writing drivers for whatever they make, there were all sorts of problems with hardware compatibility, ESPECIALLY with older hardware. Add to that UI changes ranging from minor to extensive in both Vista and Office 07, overzealous UAC, and a million other little things (on top of the million other little things that didn't make it into vista (i thought it was funny that theirs actually a wikipedia page for "Features removed from Windows Vista")), and obviously, almost no ones first impressions were good. Tech writers ravaged it, the mainstream media picked up on their stories and killed most of the little momentum Vista had by simply parroting the tech writers.
However, since then drivers have gotten good, service pack 1 has come out, and Vista has matured. You'd have a hard time finding a second impression review of the OS that did nothing but bash the OS like the first impression ones did. In fact, lots of reviews coming out now are actually praising Vista for becoming better than its predecessor (granted only with modern day hardware).
Windows 7 is Windows Vista++. A refined UI, refined UAC, drivers are mature now, performance is approximately as good or better than vista (which is as good or better than XP on the right hardware), IE8 is shaping up to be an improvement, and the whole package seems to just work better. Most of the tech writers have already been won over by Vista, windows 7 appears to be better than that (and its just a beta!), so obviously they write favorable reviews. The mainstream media is picking up on their stories and hyping up the slowly growing mass of momentum Windows 7 has by simply parroting the tech writers.
TL;DR: vista was killed by bad first impressions that the mass media ran with. windows 7 will succeed because of good first impressions that the mass media is running with.
I can't agree with that at all, Dave. Windows 95 was fantastic at it's release. In converted many diehard DOS users when they had turned their nose to Windows 3.x. Windows 98 on the other hand was nothing but a bloated Windows 95. They just added enough "needed features" in 98, that you had to upgrade. I mostly upgraded for the USB support. Win2k was an absolute masterpiece at it's release. It just never caught on outside of enterprise, which was really a great shame. It was bad marketing on Microsoft's part. They worked out the kinks in their marketing with Windows XP, which again was just a bloated Win2k. Most companies transitioned from Win2k only because Microsoft stopped supporting it. (And many still haven't)
:wq
well put.
If microsoft wanted a real killer OS, they would release XP SE or something with updated drivers and fixes.
The only downside to running XP at this point is drivers are slowly becoming more difficult to get a hold of.
Blog hype or lack of it may change the impression of the product, or maybe MSFT finally has brought out the product Vista should have been, but the real question is does it provide value for the money it costs?
Microsoft's strategy of keeping itself inserted in the market by pressuring OEM's isn't going to last. There are already cracks in that wall. Netbooks almost got away from them, still could unless Windows 7 flies on low end hardware and doesn't add $100 to the cost. Maybe a lower cost version for low end hardware
Any way you slice it MS is in a bind. Sure they'll keep muscling the market via OEM's and leveraging school and government officials, the dead weight of legions of MCSE's and .NET developers, people invested in Microsoft, many in positions to influence decision makers. There's a lot of institutional inertia there. But if they field a crippled version for lower cost netbooks, Linux will eat their lunch on features. If they charge full price that will essentially double the cost of low end hardware. In addition, hardware OEM's want to sell more powerful and more expensive new desktops. But the market for high end hardware is not growing that fast. There's gaming, video, CAD and a few other specialized areas where you need beefy horsepower. The average productivity workstation doesn't need dual cores. For a majority of home users being able to see pictures of their kids, dash off a quick letter once in a while and check email is all they need to do and they don't need a $300 OS or high end hardware to do that. I just don't see a bright future for Redmond in this.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Have you actually tasted commercially packaged, pre-sliced bread? It is terrible. Go to a good baker, now, and get a fresh whole loaf. No, don't go to the supermarket, a real baker! If you're fast, it might still be nice, warm, and crispy.
If that's the reason for Windows' success, then how do you explain the fact that so many of the biggest Windows users (i.e. major companies) explicitly go out of their way to prevent that kind of behaviour? Most places these days have a horribly bureaucratic process required to get access to the most trivial of utilities. Many companies even use programs designed to sniff out unauthorised software, to ensure that nothing they don't know about ever gets run on their computers.
And of course it's worth noting that since Vista, Microsoft have been doing everything they can to move towards the Linux/Unix style, where even home users need to use an administrator password to install software. So apparently even Microsoft disagrees with you about what makes Windows successful...
You know, I'm quite certain that if I tried to run Ubuntu 8.10 or whatever the newest release of it is (I've been out of the loop for a bit) on the same machine that I was running Red Hat 5.1 on ten years ago, it would choke.
I'm not. There are not really any more background processes. Code efficiency has improved... the only thing that probably would be slower is the GUI, but that's only the window manager and can be changed out easily or scaled back with settings changes.
Fundamentally Windows gets slower because the core system gets slower in the background, meaning the system as a whole needs more CPU just to stay in place. This contrasts with both Mac and Linux systems where new releases generally do not cause overall system slowdowns, even though they may add some components that are more CPU intensive.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley