Microsoft fights back, but does it have enough ammo?
Microsoft fights back.
(Credit: Microsoft)For quite a while now, we've heard Microsoft claim that when it unleashes its barrage of advertising, Apple and the rest of the software industry will be put on notice.
"You thought the sleeping giant was still sleeping?" Microsoft's VP of Windows Vista consumer marketing said recently. "Well, we've woken up, and it's time to take our message forward."
And it looks like the company has done just that. In what will surely prove to be just the first salvo in an ongoing marketing struggle with Apple that could bulge to an astounding $300 million investment, Microsoft has unleashed an ad campaign saying we all need to learn the facts about Vista.
"When Windows Vista debuted in January 2007, we declared it the best operating system we had ever made. 'Windows Vista is beautiful,' The New York Times raved. It's humbling that millions of you agree," Microsoft's site says after clicking the ad.
"But we know a few of you were disappointed by your early encounter. Printers didn't work. Games felt sluggish. You told us--loudly at times--that the latest Windows wasn't always living up to your high expectations for a Microsoft product...Our goal is always to make each new version of Windows better than the last. With Windows Vista, we're convinced we succeeded."
With 180 million licenses in the wild already, it's hard to argue with Microsoft's logic. But the main question that Microsoft needs to answer remains: Why should I buy Vista if XP works so well?
There's no doubt in my mind that Microsoft truly wants to see its operating system succeed. But as much as the company wants us to, I simply don't think we can forget about XP.
As bad as it was before SP2, XP is now a fine operating system that satisfies the needs of both individuals and companies alike. And with the ability to run SP3, which adds the valuable security features already included in Vista, the latter becomes a hard sell at the register.
The way I see it, Vista simply doesn't provide enough benefits to justify its ownership. It also doesn't provide enough benefits to force companies like Intel to switch its 80,000 employees from XP to Vista. And although it may be a better operating system in Microsoft's opinion, advertising won't solve its major dilemma: too many people like XP.
How does Microsoft solve the XP problem? Ostensibly, the first part of its plan was to eliminate its availability altogether, but I don't think Microsoft knows where to go from there. What can it possibly do with XP's installed base? No matter what Microsoft says about Vista, it doesn't address one problem: what makes Vista so unique, so wonderful, so new, so special, that we all want to run out, do away with a perfectly fine computer and operating system, and buy a new one running Vista?
So Vista has better driver support, games work better, it's extremely secure, and it's oh-so beautiful. Who cares? XP has full driver support, games work great, it's just as secure now that SP3 is installed, and although it's not as pretty as Vista, some people think XP is actually better looking in the first place.
I'm afraid Microsoft may be spending its money in the wrong way. I understand its desire to improve Vista's perception, and it makes total sense. But if it can't coax XP users to come to Vista, I don't see the point. As Vista's success shows, Microsoft is fully capable of selling Vista to users who are ready and willing to upgrade, but it still hasn't been able to provide compelling reasons for users and companies who rely on XP to switch to Vista.
And unfortunately, I don't think it can.
I applaud Microsoft for finally fighting back and confronting Apple's marketing ploy that has put Vista in the wrong light. But if it can't find reasons to make people and (most importantly) companies switch to Vista from XP, it's facing the same problem it was before. Only this time, the company is spending more to get the same response.
Want to know what Don is up to? Follow him on Twitter 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.
Nice workplace by the way.
But you apparently forgot to take your medicine.
This is going to be a slow go for Microsoft to make the case that Vista is an improvement. They've hired the best ad agency available to help them make their case. I wish 'em luck.
Vista is a dog and MS knows it. No amount of spin can change the fact that it was released underfeatured and ironically overfeatured, buggy, ugly, slow. No amount of updates are going to fix it either.
MS has already admitted it is a failure and is moving on. It is just trying to stop Apple's remarkable growth rate and get more money out of Microsoft's idiotic customer base. Within 12 months Microsoft is going to be slamming Vista hard in order to push Windows 7 which is even less compelling than Vista which is unbelievable.
Yes, we got it. You hate all things Microsoft. You've made that clear time and time again. If you want to try something new, you might actually state some real facts and evidence instead of FUD to back up your comments.
If it's MAC, tell me, what does M A C stand for?
Get laid? Another intelligent MS fan.
Aztec, MAC and Mac are two different things.
Kwas, didn't your mom send you to bed? Apple shill??? That is funny since I do not own even one Apple product, not one. I would say you should make more assumptions but you are the biggest ass, even bigger than Vegehead.
My reputation? Seriously Dan. Coming from a paid MS shill that doesn't know the first thing about computers? Ramble on Vegehead.
When MS starts talking trash about Vista within a year what are you idiotic fanboys going to say then? It won't happen? yeah, just like MS didn't spend millions to trash XP 2 years ago. Luckily it failed since people are getting to smart to fall for the forced upgrade cycle that MS desperately depends on.
In response to Kwasi, who wrote: "180 million OS licenses is not 180 million Vista licenses sold? Pray what is it then?" That answer is simple: Microsoft counts every non-server Windows license sold as a Vista license, whether it is actually Vista, XP, or whatever. For nearly a year now, Dell and HP have been selling XP-preloads but each one counts as a "Vista" license due to "downgrade rights", as per MSFT.
In general, MSFt is going to have to do more than just rehabilitate Vista's name... they're going to have to provide compelling reasons for XP users to buy an OS that has no compelling features to justify the cost, and to eat a performance hit on top of that. I don't envy them.
/P
Vista steals resources without providing any value for those lost resources. That is the bottom line and is reason it is a technical failure.
"Vista steals resources without providing any value for those lost resources. That is the bottom line and is reason it is a technical failure."
I'll take you up on that challenge. Please state exactly what resources you are talking about. What applications were running at the time? What is the system configuration? Software versions? We need to know all of this if your comments can be justified. Without it, then your comments are without any basis and are invalid.
Now for a return volley- Look at any Windows system that has Quicktime installed. Go look at the list of processes. You'll find IPodServices and ITunesHelper.exe running. That's on a system *without* iTunes or an iPod ever attached. Those services are taking up resources in memory even though the person didn't request or want them. *THAT* is installing software and taking up resources on a system without the permission of the owner of that system. How do you defend that action? According to your own comment above, it means that Apple's software products "steals resources without providing any value for those lost resources. That is the bottom line and is reason it is a technical failure."
Now then, I don't think reasonable people would call either Apple's or Microsoft's products a failure like you have, but that is your right to do so. Your opinion is your own and nobody else's.... and that is a very good thing indeed.
Of course people who use Vista don't complain. They are the ones MS counts on and they don't know enough to say it sucks.
Kinda like the redneck sucking on a can of Miller, he likes it cuz he doesn't know any better.
CNET comments are rife with people I discribe. They say Vista runs great on their machine but they have nothing to compare it to. If they put XP on it, then they would start to understand the depth of suckiness that is Vista.
What resources? A challenge? Even you can't be this stupid.
Vista uses more RAM. That means there is less RAM for applications, which means VM gets used more which means your system slows down.
Seriously, you don't understand that?
Also the OEMs are all too often making a real dog's breakfast out of their "fresh" installs on new hardware. Again that can make Vista look very bad indeed.
So is Vista a dog? Well sometimes it barks, and walks on all fours.
However that won't be everyone's experience with it, and for those with a powerful system, that just happens to have nice well written Vista drivers, well sure Vista will be fine. If you like all the UI doodahs, all your software works and you're not too confused by the changes, the you might love Vista.
However, if some of these things aren't true, well you might feel somewhat differently. Is this because Vista is a bad product? Probably not, but there are problems associated with Vista.
Now is it worth upgrading to Vista? Well personally I'd suggest it probably isn't, sure there are exceptions (your buddy might have upgraded the exact same kind of PC you have with no issues) but on balance I see little benefit above SP3 on XP.
Is it worth trashing Vista on a new system? Again there are exceptions (application software support) but I think if the OEM has made a reasonable job of installing Vista you'll be fine. The UI changes are pretty annoying to begin with, but it's nothing we've not been through before. Clearly Vista support is only going to get better at this point.
So, best version of Windows so far? Not at this point no. It might be later, but right now, I'd say not. But I never thought we'd be praising XP ;-)
I think Microsoft have a real problem on their hands generally, and especially with Vista. The OEMs are making Microsoft look really bad, the quality of their software installs are at an all time low. I don't know what Microsoft can do about that, but this is Apple's clear advantage right now: they control everything about the experience of buying a Mac. So it is true a Mac "just works", and all too often PCs "don't work right". Really there would be no excuse if Apple couldn't get it right. They don't load crapware for a fast buck on a new system, they make sure Mac OS X installs with no fuss on their hardware (much easier when you've made that hardware and the number of possible components is low compared with the PC).
On the other side, Windows installs have become so complex that installing Linux can be as easy (and sometimes easier). Linux distros are constantly adding hardware support, and as such more closely track the changing landscape of PC hardware. The UI of a modern Linux, especially running on a modern system is aesthetically pleasing and offers many of the same UI doodahs that Microsoft are touting with Vista. Add to that Linux is cheap to try and you can see Microsoft have a real problem, especially as more and more computing happens on the Web.
I also think having so many different versions of Vista, especially given their pricing, is a very bad idea for Microsoft. Why aren't all Vistas "ultimate"? At this point I think doing this would really help Microsoft change perceptions, more than flashy ads. Add to that and some strong words with the OEMs about how they are installing Vista and what other products they are "bundling" would also help.
Don't worry about it too much, you are in um good company.
Vegehead
jean
kwas
futureboy
...
I thought that America was discovered by people who walked across a land bridge from Asia. When the Vikings landed they met "Native Americans."
In my job I've made it my duty to find every solution possible that will prevent us from going to Vista as long as it runs like crap.
"My own experience with Vista which I will admit is anecdotal shows that Vista is much slower than XP on slower hardware. "
This does make perfect sense. And I bet that Windows XP would run even slower on a Pentium 90 whereas Windows 95 would run faster. Does that mean that Windows 95 is superior to XP? Match the OS to the machine's capability and you'll be fine.
I don't see any lying going on. Maybe some misunderstanding though which I trust this campaign is meant to help clarify.
Well, I see you misunderstood me. Likely my own fault. Vista runs slower on faster hardware than XP runs on slower hardware. If Windows 98 had run faster on a P90 than a P2 I'd be just as miffed. In my case XP runs faster on my Sempron 2400 than Vista does on my 2.4GHz laptop. Functionally the OS'es have the same features since the LT is running Vista Basic. I've also found that Vista will for some unknown reason lock a file so that it can't be renamed, moved, deleted, or copied. Don't know how that happens...
"180 million OS licenses "sold" not 180 million vista licenses and certainly not 180 million copies of vista running. Nice try though."
Then exactly how many? You didn't say. What percentage? You don't even know. If only one of those computers ran another OS, you'd still make the same trash statement. You had the chance to WOW us with real facts but gave us obscurity.
"Vista is a dog and MS knows it. No amount of spin can change the fact that it was released underfeatured and ironically overfeatured, buggy, ugly, slow. No amount of updates are going to fix it either."
People said the same about 2000 and XP. I didn't like them at first either, but they DID get better... especially XP after SP2. Now prove to me that no amount of updates are going to fix it. You can't because you don't know the future. Stop making stupid statements that amount to guessing.
"MS has already admitted it is a failure and is moving on. It is just trying to stop Apple's remarkable growth rate and get more money out of Microsoft's idiotic customer base. Within 12 months Microsoft is going to be slamming Vista hard in order to push Windows 7 which is even less compelling than Vista which is unbelievable. "
Really? AGAIN, You don't know the future. Stop making stupid statements that amount to nothing more than guessing. I am not the only person who is fed up with your stupidity.
Why don't they just get it right before they take my money? That's what honest companies do.
Vista, as announced, is still vaporware - what is sold as Vista is XP with a new skin and lots of klutzy applets that crash into each other.
Face it - the truth is out: it's a lot cheaper to spend $300 mil on advertising than to fix Windoze ...
Look at the past. Are you going to say that MS didn't slam XP hard in the lead up to Vista? Vegehead is that stupid, I don't think you are.
Look at the features they are trumpeting for Windows 7. It is just more of the same crap built on top of Vista.
You find that compelling?
The UI is awkward and the resources requirements are high. I've finally bought in with my latest laptop (Dell Studio 17) and the heavy hardware does a good job of masking the Vista overhead, but the UI still drives me nuts. Ironically, it is many of the things that are copied from OSX that irritate me. 8^)
Well, I see you misunderstood me. Likely my own fault. Vista runs slower on faster hardware than XP runs on slower hardware. If Windows 98 had run faster on a P90 than a P2 I'd be just as miffed. In my case XP runs faster on my Sempron 2400 than Vista does on my 2.4GHz laptop. Functionally the OS'es have the same features since the LT is running Vista Basic. I've also found that Vista will for some unknown reason lock a file so that it can't be renamed, moved, deleted, or copied. Don't know how that happens...
Vista is always slower, considerably slower.
What do you get for the loss of performance? A hideous GUI and DRM.
I have to believe that MS marketing has something more up their sleeve than just "Vista doesn't suck as much as you think."
MSFT managed to fend off all comers for a very long time, because there was no way for folks to compare against much of anything else... after all, folks usually don't invest money in an unknown. However, this is no longer the case with Macs.
In 2001, only 1 in 50 people owned a Macintosh, and with no store demos available, how would an ordinary person ever get to see one in action? Now nearly 1 in 10 folks own a Mac (plus probably 1 in 4 own an iPod), and a demo is as close as the nearest Apple Store. This means that ordinary folks have a far greater chance of making direct comparisons, dispelling mysteries, and a better chance of finding someone who can answer direct and honest questions about it.
Before, Microsoft could be content to spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt to keep average folks from buying something else. They could also be content with producing software that was (barely) 'good enough'.
Now, Microsoft has to compete on merit. Right now, they're trying to delay that with am (IMHO) propaganda bombardment of sorts. Thing is, they're going to have to engineer their products to be more than merely "good enough", and start responding to pricing pressures. If they don't they're well on their way to being hosed... and Vista's failings (both in the market and technically) should have served them a strong warning of this.
Why would anyone buy a new OS (Vista) from a company that never got the last OS (XP) right?
You can fool some of the people some of the time but MS makes a career of it.
The real pity is that Gates could have been a latter-day Prometheus -- but ends up as a cheap hustler who took the money and ran.
The "my OS is better than your OS argument" is wearing a bit thin. Use the one that suits your needs. It would be better for us, the online OS enthusiast community, to promote OS diversity to help slow the propagation of viruses and malware. Don't tell me my choice sucks, I use most of them regularly (except Vista), there's not much you can teach me. And MAC is not an acronym!
What really does suck is those Mac ads. I have high hopes that the microsoft campaign will encourage some innovation in the Mac ads, I've had enough.
PS: MAC is an acronym... it's just that it has naught to do with an Mac per se (unless you're talking about the network card, anyway).
Media Access Control for one
I personally believe that the best OS out there is Linux. And no I'm not some sort of computer geek or nerd I just think that Linux is great. I currently use Ubuntu and I am enjoying it. I switched to Linux after my Windows PC suffered and inexplicable meltdown. When that happened I decided that I was tired of fighting my computer just to make it work. So I switched over to Ubuntu and I have been happy ever since.
For all of you who don't know Linux is no longer a command line OS. It has just as many features as the leading commercial OS's. Take for example Windows Aero, one of Vista's big ticket items. Linux has something called Compiz Fusion that does the same thing that Aero does but with much more flexibility and for free. Another great thing about Linux is that it runs much much faster than any version of Windows I have ever tried.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth
I don't know how successful MS will be attacking Apple's campaign, but it gives Apple added stature to know that they have gotten MS's attention enough to respond in kind :-p.
Then there's the idiotic claims of Bill Gates who seems delirious when he "authoritatively" states that there's a new vulnerability found for mac os x every single day, a vulnerability that compromises the entire system. Care to back that up, Mr. Gates? Why am I never infected with viruses and malware with my Mac, ever - even though I don't run AV software or anti-malware software...?
It's true that macs are hacked at hacking conventions/contests - but when you really want to hack someone and are bent on hacking them, I don't think any OS will very easily stand in the way. You just have to look at the common user's experience - windows == hacked, macs != hacked in the real world. Sorry MS.
"I?m not sure what ticks me off more about Leoptard (I can?t take credit for that nickname?some Brit coined it): the fact that so many of the semi-important changes don?t work, the fact that Apple turned a stable OS into a crash-happy glitz fest, or that the annoying, scruffy Live Free or Die Hard actor infecting my TV (and our Web site, by the way) is pretending that Leopard is better than Vista. It?s not better than Vista"
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1002
I suggest posters on this thread read the entire piece. It will open people's eyes as to how really crap the "Leopard" Mac OS was.
Only mindless MS fans desperately in search for a strawman.
Some of the replies are a reminder to their authors that what happens to your computer platform for good or ill does not happen to you personally. Some posts are surprisingly emotional and defensive, which used to be the province of Mac users back when Apple was "beleaguered".
People, Microsoft does not need your "love". They are a business in a competitive business. Most people would agree that Vista adoption is a setback, including Microsoft themselves in this ad. A setback like this is a sign to go back and do your work better.
It is easier to market their way out and hope Intel bails them out.
The problem is that Moore's law is only an observation and people are finally getting savvy enough to see through the BS marketing of Microsoft.
Do you really think that the morons that bought into Vista are ready to drop a couple of hundred dollars next year?
Your numbers are misleading on their face because of upgrades to XP and many people wiping Vista and putting a real OS on their machines. Not too mention that every XP license sale since Vista came out has been marked as a Vista sale.
All the lies in the world won't change the fact that Vista is worse then ME and is already obsolete.
Enjoy your slow machine that is riddled without exploits.
How the H##l could it be worse than ME? you do realize that windows ME used the DOS kernel and not the NT kernel right? ME on a new PC might very well be slower than vista, due the the dos architecture being much less effiecient than the nt architecture. plus the fact that no modern software supports dos based operating systems. and everyone knows that windows vista and xp work perfectly well if you take the time to configure it properly. do you think they morons who spent a couple THOUSAND dollars on their 98 se machine were ready to spend a coiuple hundred bucks to upgrade to 2k? yes they were.
You're only embarrassing yourself. "VISTA is worse than ME"? Nonsense. Then you say Vista "is already obsolete" then go on to say it "is going to be obsolete next year" -- IN THE SAME POST. You're not making sense.
Can you show any facts in your statements, or are you really as full of it as everyone thinks you are. Last article I read about Vista adoption they did a check on the number of lisences MS said they sold and compared it to Net Applications numbers and it came out to show that within a margin of error the numbers where accurate.
- by dirty55409 July 22, 2008 7:37 PM PDT
- Windows Vista meet Windows 2000
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 4 pages (142 Comments)