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.

Comments

Lets be fair

[thammoud]

I know this is /. but Windows 7 is much better than Vista and looks to be a decent OS for those who wish to run Windows.

Re:TFA is totally wrong about why Vista failed

[Narpak]

Well as you say XP runs fine and it still covers the needs of many.

The father of a very close friend of mine owns and runs an electric service company, have a few dozen employees. He runs XP (and still runs Word 98 last time I checked); it covers the needs of his company and he see no reason to spent money on upgrades he really don't need at all. Basically his philosophy is "if it works; leave it the hell alone". I reckon his way of looking at the IT issue isn't uncommon among people who are running a business (especially when it is a local one). Vista costs money, new computers cost money, re-education costs money; keeping what you have that works does not infer an additional cost.

Re:Hookay... damage control? Paid by MS?

[MrMr]

But did they fix the bug? Or does it still produce 'scientific' and 'wrong' results for 3+2*2?

amplified problems beyond reason? I don't think so

[kimvette]

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.

I don't think so.

A 90% decrease in network performance while listening to music and the continuous[continue][cancel] prompts without actually fixing the security model are not small problems. When users cannot intentionally install software or change superficial settings (resolution, wallpaper, etc) but spyware and viruses can freely install themselves programatically is an indication that Vista did not at all live up to Microsoft's promises. That users did not get what they paid for (better performance, improved security) and the user[continue][cancel] experience is[continue][cancel] continually [continue][cancel] interrupted [continue][cancel] to create [continue][cancel] perception of [continue][cancel] security is are major problems.

The [continue][cancel] UAC [continue][cancel] "feature" [continue][cancel] is analogous to [continue][cancel] Duhbya's [continue][cancel] homeland security theater. It's almost completely ineffective, forces us to take off our shoes and leave bottled water and nail clippers behind while not the real criminals. It's a great show and gives the masses the "feel" of security without really providing any.