What if Microsoft doesn't want Vista to succeed?
I may have lost a few of you with the headline and you're already deciding to tell me that I'm just plain wrong by even suggesting Microsoft is OK with Vista failing, but hear me out. I'm not going to make the case that Vista has failed--if you look at sales figures, I think it's safe to say that while it isn't the most celebrated OS Microsoft has released, it still has done relatively well--and I won't even make the case that Vista should fail.
Instead, I've had this inkling for the past year based on what I've seen come out of the Microsoft camp that the company is fine with the poor Vista PR and doesn't really care that most businesses are loath to switch from XP. And with the constant rhetoric coming from the top echelons of the company telling us exactly why Windows 7 will be the greatest version of Windows Microsoft has ever released, it's becoming abundantly clear that Microsoft just doesn't care that Vista is facing such pressure.
But Microsoft's neglect of Vista goes far beyond the hopeful success of Windows 7. I think Microsoft is perfectly fine with the way things have developed in the industry and its desire to prove the value of Vista was barely a concern once the company released the operating system.
Sure, it's releasing commercials now in an attempt to fight back against Apple, but have you noticed that none of the commercials gives viewers a reason to use Vista itself? The company is quick to point out why you should own a PC, but when it comes to Vista, it's as if the operating system shouldn't be mentioned.
I should point out that there is no way to prove my theory. Microsoft constantly tells journalists that Vista is perfectly fine and it's hitting all the sales benchmarks it laid out in the beginning and that it's proud of the operating system it built. I don't doubt either point. I just think that to push the company's strategy forward and put itself back on the tech map, the company felt Vista could be the single product that would make it take some bumps in the short term, but push Microsoft's agenda forward over the long term.
Build low expectations
When Microsoft released Vista, it knew that it was offering an operating system that didn't have the chutzpah to compete on the same level as XP or
Mac OS X. The company knew that with a few more months of development, it could fix the major issues facing the OS, like compatibility problems and the UAC. And yet, knowing that all too well, Microsoft pushed the OS out the door.
Some say that Microsoft's haste was due to Gates' and Ballmer's desire to stop the delays and start realizing a return on the company's investment. Others say that Microsoft was mostly unaware of the issues plaguing the OS.
I think it was all part of the plan.
See, with a less-than ideal operating system on the market that Microsoft knew would be relatively successful no matter what, Ballmer found a way to push his agenda forward. He knew that he wanted the extra cash to funnel into online endeavors and was fully aware that Microsoft's control over the hardware vendors made it practically impossible for Vista to not be a success. And although the company might feel some backlash because of the issues the OS faces, maybe Microsoft brass felt that it was a cost of doing business and it didn't matter: the money would still filter in because the world needed Vista more than Vista needed the world.
Shareholders
Anyone who follows Microsoft's stock knows all too well that it doesn't move. No matter how well the company performs, one share usually hovers in the $20 to $30 range. That's fine for a company that has a stable financial structure and a relatively happy group of shareholders, but it's a real pain when a company wants to shift its focus in another direction.
In essence, Microsoft is a victim of its own success. Shareholders have hitched their retirements to the company because of the success of Windows and Office, and they expect that success to continue on the software front. But if Ballmer has shown us anything over the past few months, Microsoft's focus is slowly but surely moving away from software and toward the online space where Google is beating its brains in.
Should we forget that through Vista's growing pains, Microsoft spent $6 billion on Aquantive, a relatively unknown online advertising firm? Or should we forget that Microsoft took a $240 million stake in Facebook even though some were calling on the company to address Windows issues?
According to Ballmer last year in an interview with the Times Online, Microsoft's foray into the online world "proves his commitment" to advertising.
"We're going to keep coming and coming," he said in an interview. "I think everybody would like to see--in advertising and search--Google get some competition."
And perhaps most importantly, Microsoft's chief said last year that focusing on advertising "gives us the chance to surprise shareholders."
But how willing to be surprised are shareholders? With an extremely popular Vista that didn't face many issues, I'd say that shareholders would rebel against Microsoft's desire to move online and compete in an environment that's extremely difficult to be successful in. But now that Vista has faced so many issues and Microsoft went out of its way to tell the world that and explain why Windows 7 is right for us, maybe Microsoft's desire all along was to use Vista as a means to downplay the significance of its OS to get the green light for its online endeavors.
I'm sure some would say that neither success in its software business nor its online business are mutually exclusive, but I have to disagree. Shareholders invest in Microsoft for its software and all the extras are a bonus. And if you look at Microsoft's success (or lack thereof) online over the past few years, it's abundantly clear that when the company's execs focus their attention online, it's to the detriment of software and while they were focusing all their attention on software a few years ago, it was to the detriment of the online business.
Maybe Vista really is as bad as critics want to say and Microsoft is extremely unhappy with the way it turned out. But if we consider the rhetoric coming from the company's execs about how wonderful Windows 7 will be and how Microsoft can be the next big thing online, the company's attitude doesn't reflect that.
I think Vista's troubles may have been the key to Microsoft's strategy. By having critics highlight those flaws, the company could make the case to shareholders that it needs to spend bundles of cash to expand online (thus furthering Ballmer's agenda), while not risking too much: it's still maintaining strong profits each month regardless of Vista troubles.
Call it what you will, but if you ask me, I think Vista was a perfectly drafted mistake on the part of Microsoft to give executives some breathing room to change the focus of the company. Sure, Windows is still an integral part of its business model and nothing can change that, but for the first time in its storied history, Microsoft is using an operating system's troubles to shift its focus from software to the Web.
Will it work? Time will tell. But for Ballmer's sake, it better.
Check out Don's Digital Home podcast, Twitter feed, and FriendFeed.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
This is called "ignoring the elephant in the room."
Frankly, I don't believe the Microsoft of 2008 is smart enough to orchestrate an intentionally-crappy Vista as part of some masterful business scheme. Vista is crappy because Microsoft has no creativity. Microsoft built its business on the innovation of competitors, grew fat and lazy, and churns out dreck confident that customers will happily lap it up. They're the McDonalds of software. And their days at the top of the food chain are coming to an end. Please let it be sooner rather than later - I want to see innovation in the marketplace again.
The problem is that OSs are mature. Leopard was no quantum leaps ahead of Tiger. And Ubuntu seems like a good alternative choice because it is rapidly catching up to both. If anyone tried to put forward new features that would make an OS many times better than current ones, they would struggle without resorting to web integration, of which Microsoft is involved and then have a valid reason to be in the web space.
@cporpheus - "Many of their Live software..." I'm not sure you realize how many companies M$ acquires to get their hands on other company's innovations. Microsoft buys companies hand-over-fist to acquire their innovation. While the "Borg" metaphor was entertaining at one point, they really have become so.
Their "Live" line-up is decent, but none of it is innovative. Every one of the "Live Applications" has been around for years and in most cases is sub-par to their competing web-apps. The only "innovation" has been to tie them into one "login account" and really all that does is increase "vendor lock-in".
Many would beg to differ on the leaps from Tiger to Leopard, myself included. Considering how many features OS X has in it before Vista was even announced that made it into the V word, "innovative" is the last word I would use when describing Redmond.
So, how about it?
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2008/11/10/windows-7-faster-or-just-smarter/
In other words you can't tell me.
@justgold97
Thank for a link to a blog that uses subjective criteria and irrelevant benchmarks. No, really.
Anyone else?
http://www.google.com/search?q=why%20vista%20sucks
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=problems+with+vista&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Vista+issues&btnG=Search
Have fun reading as much as I have.
Buh by.
Uh, uh, uh! I want YOU to explain why Vista sucks for YOU and what YOUR personal experiences of it are. If I wanted lots of blog articles dating from 2006 and 2007mostly written by lazy and ill informed people like you I could have done that myself.
So how about it, chief?
My problems with Vista are twofold. While Vista handles my dual-core 64 bit CPU infinitely better than XP, my network performance is dog-slow. Copying a file over the network on XP takes on average only 50-66% of the time it takes me on Vista. (And this is the same machine, dual-boot, so same hardware.)
Add to that the fact that my scanner software (CanoScan) keeps tanking and dying under Vista. While I grant you that the problem is probably on Canon's side rather than Microsoft's, the end result proved to be a diminished user experience; I know others who had compatibility issues with Vista.
Vista SP1 is a vast improvement over the original Vista, but there are still reasons I keep booting back into XP. In XP things tend to work in more reliable and expect ways, where periodically I have to really struggle to convince something to work the way I want in Vista. And I'm a software engineer, so hardly illiterate in how to make things work!
As I said, they've made huge strides; I could actually mostly use Vista as my day-to-day operating system now where that was impossible at release, but there's still a lot of things that drive me nuts or fail to work, forcing me back into XP for various tasks. And if I have to keep booting back into XP for various things, I find that I'm more likely to stay there as my primary OS.
The evidence for this is pretty clear. Vista took 5+ years to develop, some of it which was the OS team moving to fix XP by developing and releasing Service Pack 2. WinFS, along with other over-hyped and unreleased features, never came and Microsoft made little effort to work with OEMs to ensure compatibility. Vista was released AFTER the holiday season, which launched the "Windows Capable" program to ensure PC sales for the holidays and the class-action lawsuit over the program itself.
Compounding this was Microsoft's lofty goals for Vista. Vista had compatibility problems because it has a different low-level structure that includes the driver model, permission elevations, and a newly written network stack. It may look like XP, but it radically different underneath.
Nevertheless, Microsoft maintained as much compatibility as they could because journalists would have complained louder. After all, where Apple could ditch all of the people who bought PowerPC processor-based computers because of their single-digit market share, Microsoft could not do the same without suffering even more backlash than they (rightfully at first) deserved.
I think there is merit in the argument that Microsoft really wants 7 to succeed more than Vista. After all, now that there are no huge problems with Vista (other than the publicity), and 7 has the same underlying code, except where the OS team made things run more efficiently (as evidenced by its running on netbooks), and the UI tweaks that journalists seem to love, it seems obvious that Vista isn't at the forefront of Microsoft's effort.
My prediction is that just by the fact that 7 is a different name than Vista, it will succeed. Even Vista 64-bit (which I am using) is remarkably stable and compatible with software and hardware. Because 7 is building on Vista's successes in software and will inherit little of the backlash, I think 7 will succeed because people are excited for it and many people are actually using it.
One thing's for certain. If 7 is released without a major hitch, Apple must find a replacement for Vista's role as whipping boy.
You see, Snow Leopard (basically a minor update of Leopard) will drop PPC support, but that comes out next year. Leopard runs just fine on PPC (ask me how I know that ;) ).
A second factor you forget is that PPC machines can and will run just fine on Leopard, or Tiger, or even 10.3 (which my dual G5 ran up until roughly June of this year) - without worrying about application compatibility (Universal Binaries, you know), or any other hitch.
Vista actually runs now w/ SP1, but it runs like a wounded pig on a 2GB Core Duo box, especially when compared to its competition on the exact same hardware.
Windows 7 not only needs to not suck, but it needs to actually keep up with its competition now.
I'm sure Apple will do their very best to find flaws with Windows 7, though, once it's released...even if it's just a matter of "WE have this, and THEY don't".
We'll see, though...we'll see.
If Vista runs like a wounded pig on a C2D box - and from Extreme Tech's test we can see it doesn't : http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302498,00.asp - then the problem lies behind the keyboard.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2303830,00.asp
Now XP is better at some things than Vista mainly for legacy reaons but Vista is beter than XP, particularly if you're running a 64 bit version.
Considering that their batting average (from what I've read) in just about every non-Windows, non-Office, endeavor (search, xbox, etc) is about zero I would think most stockholders should be very nervous if you are correct.
(1) http://www.xbox360fanboy.com/2008/04/25/microsofts-xbox-division-turns-a-profit-again/
http://www.joystiq.com/2005/12/28/xbox-360-costs-715-to-make/
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Reports-First-Time-Profits-for-Xbox-360-Division-90247.shtml
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/microsoft-reports-q3-losses-on-xbox-360-division
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/xbox-division-posts-19b-loss
Notice the $19 BILLION dollar loss. Personally I attribute this to poor product releases of the former console leaders. When options are limited, where do you go?
Also, MSFT is (finally) starting to push the "mojave experiment" commercials along to pimp Vista more than they have before.
IMHO, I'm thinking that Vista (originally "Longhorn") has a huge bucket of really big promises that failed miserably as development pushed along: WinFS stands out as a huge for-instance. Microsoft claimed long and loud about how Vista would totally demolish anything that came before it.
When reality utterly failed to meet expectation, and deadlines kept slipping, they pushed it out the door to avoid a shareholder revolt.
The only reason they're so eager to downplay Vista instead of Windows 7 is basic sense... Vista is permanently branded as an OS that sucks (and in many cases, rightfully so). Windows 7 is coming out next year - no need to waste a ton of cash advertising a soon-to-be expired OS, esp. when both consumer and industry are waiting for Windows 7 in the hope that it sucks less.
Now, all that said, I do agree there is an angle to start moving away from OS and apps and moving online.
As far as the original article - The ads just lean too far in the other direction. Mojave, "I'm a PC", etc. blatantly reek of a "We don't suck" campaign. Which, funny enough, isn't even innovative enough to be considered funny. It's just pathetic and I'm not sure people will buy Vista (or 7 for that matter) on sympathy.
If Windows 7 can't blow OS X out of the water, which it won't from what I've seen, AND blow Vista out of the water, which it sounds like it won't so far, 7 will be just another mediocre upgrade of a mediocre product from a mediocre company that survives only on the momentum of it's original success.
Or you're a retard. It's one of the two.
I suppose you are correct that I am retarded for assuming that my years in IT supporting a range of operating systems including, but not limited to, Microsoft products would qualify my viewpoints as valid. I feel I must humbly request absolution for wasting your greatness' time in expressing such ramblings.
Bravo sir, for calling me to the carpet. Keep us the good work and I look forward to seeing your visage on one of those "I'm a PC" commercial. BRAVO!!!
Yes, that's probably it.
As for your vitriolic request of my experiences. Mine, I should say our, experience has been the same as all the companies complaining, which Microsoft refuses to hear over their marketing campaign. We tested Vista extensively over the course of a year and it falls heavily short of their car sales promises. Read any article, if you can comprehend anything more than a phrase, and you will see our story. There hasn't been one that hasn't rung true. As I said, read and you will become enlightened to the plight of countless IT shops. If you choose to sit and be dumbstruck by their ads; so be it. That's your choice. I'm not however going to recount every detail that you can so easily find on your own.
Adding salt to the wound, the hardware costs and price of their flagship product thrusts IT expenditures to the roof of any shop that adopts it widespread again with very little return. They have not reasonably justified this refuse of digital drivel that they've shoved on us. It's a pretty upgrade, nothing more. There's very little Vista does that hasn't already been done via XP yet requires more resources to deploy, maintain and repair. Vista's only purpose is siphon uncalled for monies for a mediocre product.
So, with that said. As you attack those of us that can form more than a minor sentence, who's opinions you dismiss as though insignificant to your righteous position; how do you justify Vista's superiority? What places you as such an expert to everyone's quandary that justifies you to belittle, disparage and berate people that have justly opined their positions and experience? Who are you to require every detail of every persons experience as though you be last measure of intelligence?
You are noise. You are fanboy. You are Troll.
Good day.
@Mark_Anderson - "Sound and fury..." Neither does ignorance, arrogance, contempt or insult all of which you began with your first entry to this thread. Do the forum a favor and please write an actual sentence. Your statements thus far have been about as intriguing "U @LL Su><0r$!" You've spouted bile at anyone that doesn't like Vista without ever considering that their experience is valid, because it theirs.
Now, what Microsoft will become without Bill, I dunno, most large corporations can't move quickly enough in the tech environment. The Japanese look 10 or more years ahead, Microsoft is lucky to work on things 1 or 2 years ahead. Most all innovation in their software is purchased from other people or companies.
This makes MS a "repackaging" company, or a "branding" company. In the long haul, it won't maintain it's value. If I owned Microsoft stock, I would sell it at it's next high point. Probably after win7 is released and well accepted.
But then I gave up on Microsoft over 4 years ago, I refused to continue with XP and moved to Linux instead.
Keep telling yourself that, while your OS uses more resources for no gain in productivity.
Did you know that all the touted security additions have been broken?
Every. Last. One.
Frankly, when faced with replacing a PC with XP on it with a new PC (as my 2004 PC would not have run Vista) I just replaced the PC with a Mac.
First Microsoft doen't need shareholders approval to go online. It already has. Why else would Microsoft try to buy Yahoo? It would be impossible to even offer a bid without the shareholder's "go ahead". Second I beliave that Microsoft's investment in FaceBook was not a investment at all. It was to keep FaceBook off of Google's hands. I could already see google ofering $3-4b for Facebook. Microsoft's "investment" made that impossible becouse the company's estimated value rose to $16b instantily after the so called investment.
Now onto Vista. Windows XP had some deep design flaws, inherited from Windows NT, especilly regarding security, but also in many other aspects. Vista came to address those issues and it was very successiful in doing so. But at what cost? Compatibility. Microsoft had a hard choice to make. Fix Windows undelying architecture and bring in imcompatibilities or live with the flaws for ever and ever. They made the right choice in my opnion and their choice was based on the facts that you mentioned, they could not lose, no matter how bad things where. Now you know that Windows 7 is compatible with Vista, but when it comes out every software and hardware vendor will already have addapted to Vista's improved arquitecture and API. If Microsoft held back Vista to make it even better what motivation would the vendors have to migrate their softwares and drivers to Vista? None, I'd say. So in the end Microsoft would release a much better system but the same imcompatibilities would be there, just like when Vista first came out.
So I beliave that Microsoft was simply willing to "lose" with Vista, not to go online, but to have a much improved architecture to build upon for future releases, starting with Windows 7.
Microsoft is not naive to hurt its cash cows (Windows and Office) to go online. That's why they are always saying "software plus services", that means, buy Windows and Office and also get some online stuff for free (or worst, pay for that too).
Just compare the OS Releases Cycles:
Windows XP to Windows 7 ----> 8 years
OS X ----> roughly one new release every year
Ubuntu ----> a new release every 6 months
Does anyone here really believe that anyone at Microsoft really cares if Vista is a dog or if W7 chases its tail?
No. No one will ever lose any sleep at MSFT over quality. The fix has been in for a while and there is no way that software quality can stop the money from flowing.
The boot loader exclusivity contracts they have with the manufacturers and near file-format monopoly keep the boxes shipping with their pathetic OSes on them no matter how horrific they are.
The whole company could take a vacation for a decade and revenues wouldn't be dented at all.
Microsoft needs to reinvigorate itself and needs Mr Microsoft and visionary Bill Gates to return and give new life into a so so company. Google is in the best position to dominate the tech space for the next quarter century because of it's vision and core products and Leadership.
Then people would have a free choice and the better OS woud obviously win, wouldn't it?
:)
Vista didn't even get to boot up even once before getting the axe in favor of the vastly superior openSuse 11.
- by PowerOfThree3 November 15, 2008 12:14 AM PST
- My first exposure to Vista was in April 2007 when I was shopping for a new laptop. To be honest, I knew very little about it, good or bad. I needed a laptop immediately and the only in-store models at Circuit City and Best Buy all had Vista. I bought an HP Pavilion with Vista Home Premium, a 1.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo and (luckily) a dedicated NVIDIA 7600 graphics card. Not a powerhouse by 11/08 standards, but enough to keep Vista running at a tolerable pace.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(48 Comments)I spent months tweaking and learning the quirks of Vista. I disabled User Account Control (the most annoying feature, by far) and the Aero interface (I chose Function over Form- I don't care if it's "pretty"). After six months or so, I realized that I didn't even miss XP.
I bought a new laptop over the summer and sold my HP to a friend. This time around, I went for a bit more power- 2.5GHz T9300, ATI Radeon Mobility HD 3650 and 4GB RAM! Right out of the box, before I disabled any of Vista's features, it could plow through anything I could throw at it!
The performance of my new system illustrated one of the primary reasons Vista has been so controversial and disappointing- weak hardware. I've used a friend's laptop (1.86GHz Pentium Dual-Core and Intel integrated graphics)- feels overtaxed in most multi-tasking situations; the aforementioned HP- adequately powerful even when pushed hard (running 4-5 apps simultaneously); and the newest one- handles everything I can throw at it without breaking a sweat.
The "Vista Capable" debacle is THE perfect example. I can only imagine how a single-core CPU, integrated graphics and 1GB of RAM running Vista Home Premium wouldn't be a good experience! But Intel and Microsoft still pushed it onto systems that could barely handle it. As a result, many users learned to quickly hate Vista! Then they told everyone they knew how bad it was and it snow-balled from there.
In reality, Vista Home Premium (with a few annoying features turned off or modified) is a pretty decent O/S. I'm a little anxious about Windows 7 and learning to use it, when the time comes. I recently read that the "Ribbon" interface from Office 2007 will be used for all menus in Windows 7. I've accepted Vista, but I still vehemently despise Office 2007 and the Ribbon is largely to blame!!! I'll stick to Office 2003.....and to Vista for a while, too!