Slashdot Mirror
Is Microsoft Improving Its Image?
nk497 writes "Writer makes the case that Windows 7 is a turning point for Microsoft, and we all might start liking them soon ...
'While it's not winning everyone over, there are real signs that Microsoft has taken criticisms on board where it matters most: in the software and services that it provides. The idea of a faster, slimmer Windows is one that most Vista owners would automatically put on their wishlist, and it seems that Microsoft has genuinely done something about it. It's not just reignited interest in the Windows product line, but it's got users appreciating a fresh approach from Microsoft as well.'"
Windows XP = lean
Windows Vista = fat
Windows 7 = leaner than Vista = Windows XP
Or so people keep saying (about XP and Vista).
Back to square one?
It seems that Windows 7 is still a lot like Vista to me.
Has reviews of Windows 7 said anything other than: 'this is a prettier hog than vista, but still a hog.'? If so, I would agree, the image is improving, at least.
...of them trying to take control of their image, as opposed to letting it be defined by journalists/other people with opinions/competing companies.
Perhaps. I've also heard that Cheney being wheeled around in a wheel chair makes him more likable. And somebody said that Lindsy Lohan's new hairdo made her look smarter.
I guess only time will tell if any of these pan out.
--MarkusQ
It has been awhile since I've been excited about upgrading to a new OS. Why should I go to Windows 7? I just haven't seen the feature jump with the latest windows versions that seemed to happen between earlier versions.
Wow an article on Slashdot that doesn't say Microsoft is a total failure at everything it does. For a second I thought Slashdot was the one starting to change, but then I read the replies...
For my part, Microsoft will only improve its image when they remove DRM support from the OS and its bundled applications (IE, Media Player).
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Microsoft donates to Apache ...and of course, the "Windows 7 might actually be rather good" article in TFA.
Microsoft donates to moonlight
Microsoft supports ODF
IE to be standards compliant by default
Microsoft assist SAMBA team with interop
Maybe; just maybe, Microsoft isn't the evil machine some slashdotters make out.
throw new NoSignatureException();
WOLF! WOLF!
Maybe we should wait until, you know, Windows 7 actually comes out to find if it's the best thing since sliced bread or the worst thing since Gitmo. Vista was supposed to be the awesome super duper OS everyone would love that would make everyone want to give Ballmer hugs for, but it turned out to (from what I read) be a stinking pile of dogshit.
Frankly, given their history at Microsoft, I have no doubt to give them the benefit of. They're going to have to deliver a slim, fast, stable OS and I'll actually have to try it before I believe a word of it.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Microsoft is going to have to prove itself.
Free Martian Whores!
I suspect that the relationship's probably more akin to the one Belkin had with their "reviewers".
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
When I see Windows 7 Live CDs like I see Ubuntu and other Linux live CDs then I will really think that Windows 7 is modular. That right there says to me that you can have as little or as much as you want.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
Until microsoft makes the end customer who actually uses their products their only focus (and not the RIAA and all these other distractions) and goes back to courting developers like they did when they were successful there will be no significant change. Windows 7 will be more of the same.
Throwing arbitrary (and high) numbers out there isn't going to convince people you are right. If you want people to buy in to what you're saying, try to be more realistic or at least make it clear that your cost estimates are made up off the top of your head.
Anyway, this model really isn't all that different than what you're doing now. You don't own software now, you own licenses. And you do own licenses with today's model, but in the end is how you use them so different than your vision? You buy your license for as long as that version of Windows is useful, then buy another. In terms of net cost, they aren't going to be able to get away with the end result costing much more than it does today.
Time limited licenses are already the way of business applications. Companies don't "arbitrarily" lose access to the tools. If they allow the license to expire, they can't use it anymore. It isn't like one day they suddenly have no access anymore.
And you say you prefer to own your data? No shit? Are you implying that somehow this new version of windows is going to steal your data and give you access only when it wants? Once again, if you want people to take you seriously.. quit making shit up.
Whale
Although, compared to several years ago, I do find at more and more websites people fanboying for Microsoft. Which I find perplexing
Microsoft has been caught astroturfing on many, many occasions, across many product lines. It's not that perplexing.
But isn't Windows 7 just a service pack for Vista?
Of course it isn't. You can't cash billions from a service pack.
Microsoft really isn't a monopoly anymore. It's easy for a home computer user to switch to a Mac or to get a Linux PC from Dell or HP. Also, it's easy for them to download and install OpenOffice.
So how exactly is Microsoft supposed to implement their software rental fantasy?
This space left intentionally blank.
New tag: writerwillwinalaptop
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
that's a pretty clever ploy when you think about it. Vista is way too bloated for current machines, which has been a major hindrance to widespread adoption. but by waiting for consumer desktops to catch up to Vista's hardware requirements, they can appear to have developed a faster OS simply be re-releasing Vista under a different name with some slight UI modifications. and by the time Windows 7 is released it'll be as stable as an OS that's been out for 4-5 years.
But isn't Windows 7 just a service pack for Vista?
No. Service packs from Microsoft doesn't come with new features on the scale of new task bar systems, federating search to external data sources via OpenSearch, revised UAC, etc. Even the most extreme service pack thus far, Windows XP SP2, mostly focused just on security and a (too) simplistic firewall to solve urgent trojan problems.
Windows 7 could perhaps be called Windows Vista SE though, if the brand name wasn't as tainted. But I don't think MS would ever do a service pack release on this scale with touches throughout the OS, although many still minor. The normal SP from Microsoft is mostly just security fixes with under-the-hood changes like supporting new standards or hardware.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
... for people to get used to something new...
how IT is changing the world - http://max.zamorsky.name
I don't know. The "Vista sucks" theme really started spreading.
What has been interesting to me is the number of people who I encounter that say they bought a new computer, and while they thought Vista would suck, it's ended up being the most stable computer they've ever had.
You are right in your evaluation. In fact, MS does not design software to fit the slowest or moderate CPU at their anticipated delivery date. They want to design an OS that will be able to stick around and take full advantage of the CPU's and memory advances for several years (at least). This means that several years before the CPU's are developed, they must guess where they will be for the next 5 years and try to take advantage of that processing power to create an OS that will do more than play videos and music.
The real problem with Vista was the minimum requirements. They allowed far too many PC's around the world that were using 2003 technology run Vista. The newest CPU's and higher memory machines with better Mobo did great with it (once the drivers all became available, of course).
This was exactly where we started with XP.
jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
Hey Microsoft, want to improve your image?
1: Remove all the Vista DRM crap out of Windows 7. It's my computer, not Hollywood's.
2: Interoperate better with Open Office and support their open standard in MSWord, not your own.
3: No more per processor licensing agreements. If we want Windows at purchase time we'll ask for it ourselves.
While there's more, get started on this list now!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Windows XP = lean
Windows Vista = fat
Windows 7 = leaner than Vista = Windows XP
I must say that "bloat" is about the least information-laden phrase I hear bandied about :).
What's a consensus defintion of what it means? Wasteful use of RAM? Any additional use of RAM? Does hard drive space count? What if it's for optional non-RAM loaded stuff like templates?
Is is bloat for Vista to include a lot of printer drivers in the default image? It wasn't good for Netbooks with small SSD drives, but didn't impact system performance. And I remember lots of complaints about the full install size of Office back in the day, even though that was mainly templates that didn't need to be installed.
I think it'd be useful if we all were a little more specific about that.
My video compression blog
Okay. Let's start with Internet Explorer.
There's lots of behind-the-scenes work that's been done to improve performance, stability, and security.
Did NT have a software firewall?
It could have and should have, its not like ipchains took up a lot of resources.
Microsoft had more than enough money to hire the expertise to build a lean, high quality firewall into NT 3.5 . They chose not to.
Emaciated, thin, lean, fat, obese, who cares?
Legacy compatibility was always the key issue. This is why people stuck with MS despite frustration with classic MS weaknesses. Very few people buy Windows because they like it. Quite a few buy it because they want to preserve a pre-existing investment or to maximize their compatibility with others in the same boat.
Without the legacy support, you might as well go out and get a Mac. Until Vista, each successive version of Windows offered the user the ability to use their old apps and hardware on the new version of Windows and in most cases they ran BETTER. Starting with Vista, many things did not run AT ALL.
When enough time has gone by, people will not care so much about legacy compatibility. Upgraded software and peripherals will eventually make XP irrelevant. Question is, what happens in the mean time? How many people are left to ponder a Windows 7 migration vs. those who have jumped ship entirely?
And the biggest question of all is Microsoft's ability to sell a product on its own merits instead of legacy support. They have not done this in the OS space since MS-DOS replaced CP/M.
...that hasn't been hating Microsoft for the past couple years?
I mean, I like having to jump through hoops to get something simple to work in linux as much as the next guy (no sarcasm, this is /. after all.. who HASN'T spent a friday night recompiling software from source and swearing at the unavailability of required source libraries?), but sometimes it's just nice to "Click-click-click-done" of windows.
Sure, it may be buggy sometimes, is a target for viruses, isn't as fast or powerful as it should be, vista's a bloated pig, but I've got XP so it works and does what I tell it to, doesn't crash, runs everything I want natively, no fuss.
Office? Yeah, it sucks, trying too hard. SQL Server? S'ok. Exchange? Simple, works. IIS? Crap. Silverlight? Pass. Their X-Boxen? They f'cked up on the RROD issue, but working at correcting (C'mon baby, don't jinx it, keep bein' green!)
Am I the only one who isn't on with the hatred?
When all else fails, use fire.
Time limited licenses are already the way of business applications. Companies don't "arbitrarily" lose access to the tools. If they allow the license to expire, they can't use it anymore. It isn't like one day they suddenly have no access anymore.
Unless the permission update fails for some reason other than non-payment. This happened at the radio station I used to work for.
The software that created the daily schedule for all on-air events (called the "log" by the on-air staff) would not update and refused to allow us to create about 2 weeks worth of logs. The vendor had to fly in and do some voodo to restore everything. Meanwhile we had to go back to creating paper logs (photocopier, liquid paper, and typewriter) for a couple of weeks.
At the next contract renewal time, we told them where they could stuff their software, and moved to another vendor who didn't have time bombs built into their software.
And you say you prefer to own your data? No shit? Are you implying that somehow this new version of windows is going to steal your data and give you access only when it wants?
If the application that is locked to that proprietary file format won't let you in, you've lost access to your data. Isn't that functionally the same as not having that data any more?
---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
Microsoft is most certainly improving its image with Windows 7. They appear to be getting a lot of things right. They've improved system latency due to I/O over what was present in even XP, and the system is surprisingly stable (for a beta, of course).
Couple this with the fact that the Linux I/O scheduler appears to have moved away from a model which works well on the Linux desktop. For about the last year or so, Linux kernels have resulted in very latent desktop utility during even moderate burst-type I/O (programs/files loading, access of swap - not prologued disk writes). This may or may not be related to the bug supposedly introduced into the kernel in 2.6.18 - I don't know, I haven't personally tested it. But what I do know is that this behavior has become progressively more evident over the past 8 years: I blame the server-centric development focus in the kernel (2.2 and prior were blindingly responsive on the desktop).
With the fact that Linux desktop performance is somewhat lackluster these days giving it a perceived performance more on par with what Vista is capable of, I can see how it would sour people in preference for Windows 7, when Windows 7 appears to implement things properly - or, at least in a way which works to user expectations.
I should note that I've been personally using Linux (mostly Debian, some Ubuntu and OpenSuse) almost exclusively since around 2000. I don't make these criticisms lightly, and personally say it more as an admonishment of the Linux developers/community than I do as a proponent of W7. Whether it's a good product or not, I can not ethically approve of vendor lock in to the extent that MS software use encourages.
(Side note: has anyone noticed how W7's window effects/widgets (to the exception of the "MS-specific blurry/imperfect glass semi-transparent menus) looks shockingly like the bastard child of KDE 4 and OS X 10.5? I thought the first W7 screenshot I saw actually was KDE4 with a 'lookalike' theme.)
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Microsoft has placed some serious burdens on users, developers and systems administrators with Windows Vista. They are completely unapologetic for it. People cling to their Windows XP CDs as they would to a life raft.
Microsoft responds with PR ads like "Mojave" completely forgetting that people are annoyed not only by the user interface, but also by the things they can't do or the fact that it takes more horsepower and/or capacity to perform at the same level they experienced with WinXP.
Windows 7 does not appear to address any of the concerns that people have with Windows Vista. If someone would be so kind, I would like to see some sort of list of changes between Windows Vista and Windows 7. Are hardware requirements lower? Are annoying UI issues addressed?
Don't get me wrong -- I really want to see Windows 7 resolve the problems of Vista because the future presently makes me a little uncomfortable. But when I see clever hackers repackaging Windows XP and Windows Vista into "lite" Windows distros that are remarkably small and remarkably fast, very compatible and capable, I have to wonder what Microsoft is most interested in? It has been demonstrated over and over again what is POSSIBLE and I am sure Microsoft is aware of it. So why aren't they?
We can speculate all day long and never arrive at the truth unless Microsoft acknowledges the truth. But terms like "defective by design" are well earned when it comes to Microsoft. They aren't doing what they could. One is forced to assume that they have motives for not making their Windows releases as fast as they could be. What those motives are, precisely, is where most of the speculation occurs. I think it is because Windows is used to prop up other activities; activities of Microsoft and of other parties such as big media interests.
"I may need features you don't, and rather than having to hunt for them online and download a virus posing as a function... "
Man, if only there was some way of handing out files from a central trusted repository and doing some sort of hashing to see that they're what they should be. We could call that system "apt".
Also, for linux, I could get Puppy linux, or even just the
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD
But for the most part, most people agree that they'd like the system pre-loaded with software, hence the base distribution for most distros comes with goodies like Open Office.
Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
Saying "Is Windows 7 being better than Vista really an achievement? Vista was, to be fair, crap".
Except you don't get MS fans telling you you're talking shite.
What IS different is that 10.5 has a lot more in it that 10.1 and is faster too. Even if it were crap, a service pack would just have sped it up and not introduced some new things.
(whether these new things are worth paying for is another question)
In my heart I am still a software developer, a hardcore IT guy and a Linux advocate... In 30 years I worked for 5 start ups blah blah blah. Lots of hardcore techy cred if I want to pull it.
But, now days I make most of my income as a teacher and I make most of that teaching money teaching basic computer literacy and MS Office to people on the wrong side of the digital divide. These are not stupid people, they are not old people, most are under 25 but some are as old as 65. All are high school graduates and some have college degrees. They just don't know much about how to use a computer. They never learned and they don't care about anything but getting their job done.
I dare say that they represent a fairly large percentage of todays population.
You know what? While most of them (not all) have heard of Microsoft, they have no strong opinion of the company one way or the the other. To them windows are something that you open when you want fresh air and for some weird reason is also what makes using a computer hard or easy (depends on the person). If they know the difference between XP and Vista it is because they learned a little about using a computer with XP and then bought a computer with Vista and they are pissed because the it is different from the one they learn on. (OTOH, there is a small percentage who stumbled upon Vista and love it.)
They don't buy any thing from MS. What they have from MS came on the computer. In most cases the only software they ever buy are games and mostly they buy games for their consoles. They down load games for PCs because they can, and as one student so bluntly put it "How can it be illegal when it is so easy?"
What I am trying to say is that for the people I teach Microsoft is like the road they drive to work. They only notice it when there is a problem with it. When there is a problem, they don't blame MS, if anything they blame the company who made the computer. From their point of view rebooting windows is just like driving around a chuckhole or getting stuck in traffic. It happens, shit happens, the live with it. They don't even think about the possibility that it shouldn't happen, because it has always happened.
They do not have an opinion about MS. They don't see MS. They don't buy from MS.
Microsoft has become like the air in a big city, you only complain about it when you can see it. And, Microsoft has taken great care to make sure they are not seen, they are just there, like transparent but polluted air.
Out side of IT and the small number of IT enthusiasts in the world, nobody has an opinion about MS.
Stonewolf
Clearly this time around Microsoft is taking the proper approach to Marketing and starting a Viral Marketing campaign early enough to, in the minds of the consumers, build a positive image for their new OS before the cold shower of reality start pouring down.
I especially like the part where they keep comparing Windows 7 with Windows Vista (which is crap) instead of comparing it with Windows XP (the last good OS they made) - great way to nudge the online reviews and opinions to use an absurdly low basis of comparison AND get the suckers^H^H^H^H experimentalists that bought Windows Vista to upgrade again.
To however is behind this Marketing campaign: I salute you!
So what you're saying is, you agree with the OP and you can't remove IE from Windows without seriously damaging other components.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Retail EULA's mean absolutely nothing in the US, evidence by the fact that NO vendor has even attempted to enforce them through the courts. You buy a sealed product, and somewhere hidden inside is a slip of paper saying that you agree to something or other by virtue of having purchased the product. Well, screw that. There was a contract entered into when I bought the product, covered by UCITA, and that contract doesn't mention terms hidden in a box somewhere. You can print whatever you like on it. I'm not listening.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Ever tried removing KHTML from a KDE installation? ;)
There is the option to uninstall or never install a lot of the little features in Windows. You can also quite easily disable many of the devices. If you can figure out how to do that with Linux, it's even easier in Windows. Bloat or not, we still have the ability to turn off or get rid of a lot of the things you don't want.
I don't really buy this anymore. I've done numerous XP installs; and usually the first thing I do, prior to even connecting to the net, is uninstall a lot of crap - especially Outlook, but some of MS's other "value added" stuff as well. Yet when I run autoupdate later, I still am repeatedly being fed updates for various components of Outlook and those other pieces of Windows that supposedly have been removed - they're listed by name in the updates. So either Windows only removes the cosmetic parts of these "features", leaving most of the bloat intact; or else its updater is dumber than what's available on OS X or most Linux distros.
#DeleteChrome
Let's see what the page lists: a bajillion bells, whistles, and gongs; some updated drivers and a few performance tweaks; also, a new boatload of DRM. That's no moon, that's a service pack!
In other news: in Windows 7, "the Windows Security Center has been renamed the Windows Action Center". Innovation at its finest! (To be fair, "a new font, 'Gabriola', is included." Now THAT's something.)
Yeah no one uses Linux. Yahoo (ok fine BSD), Slashdot, Google, and so on all dont use Linux.
Its a tiny target and no one would bother writing a virus for it because they wouldnt be able to harness millions of fast servers with plenty of resources and fast internet connections.
Any idiot can write a virus for Linux but who would bother?