Comments on: Why Microsoft must abandon Vista to save itself
With the release of "Extras," Microsoft has finally delivered something. Regardless, Vista is in trouble and Microsoft should abandon it before it's too late, says Don Reisinger.
Most Popular
E-readers' next chapter--no happy ending?
There were plenty of e-book readers on display at CES 2010, but many question whether the market for such dedicated devices can support all the new entrants.
• Photos: E-readers at CES 2010
Inside the world's long-lost first microcomputer
Vintage computer historians have long revered the Altair 8800. As it turns out, an unknown computer project at Sacramento State beat the Altair by three years.
• Images: The first microcomputers
About News Blog
Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.
Add this feed to your online news reader
grain of salt, but Don isn't the only writer making the same type of
statements. It seems that there is an never ending stream of writers, some of
them big-time Window experts like Scott Finie and Chris Pirillo fame, saying
these same basic things.
Chris Pirillo has an interesting take in the link below along the same lines. Its
short and to the point, and that point is that Windows is in serious trouble!
http://chris.pirillo.com/2007/09/28/vista-rants/
Does Vista have bugs? Sure. Will they be fixed in the upcoming SP? Probably most will. And as for Microsoft taking pages from Apple... poppycock. Apple has taken a few pages from Microsoft and Linux (preview pictures in finder... XP. Time Machine... Shadow Copy. Spaces... just about every linux distro available.) In fact, there are so few improvements in Leopard that it may not be worth the money. And talk about driver incompatibility. Try installing a printer on that happy little iMac of yours.
I've heard many people say that they love Vista. I've heard a few who've had some application compatibility issues (No more than the big Win98 to XP migration!).
This article feels like it is written by some Apple fannyboy who likes to trash M$. Not worth the read. Couldn't find real news to write about?
Windows 95 was sold like a jungle fire, and the reason was
users had'nt anything more comfortable at that time than windows 95. now users already have xp so switching will take a little time.
Each way I have never read such a biased uninformed article in my life...
We are now at the point where sales projections for any Operating System should be viewed as a long term infrastructure investment vs "must have" retail purchase opportunity.
It is erroneous to report the Retail sales trend of VISTA as a conclusion to anything other than what should be considered as the general level of stability of the current XP platform (refer to current reluctance of corporate IT to accept VISTA, is there really a need?).
The wholesale investment in XP when it first arrived was due largely to the shortcomings of WIN98. Security was an issue but primarily was WIN98?s inability to manage its resource stack (reboot to free resources every 4 hrs if you used office97)
I expect the threshold for the decision of a machine migrating from XP to VISTA will soon be reached. If the base hardware of the machine supports VISTA then the decision is based on whether the cost of the VISTA is less than the install time of XP (configuration, patches etc.. which is about 4 hours)
When the OS reaches a relative level of stability, security and efficiency then there is less of a need to change. Everything else is eye candy.
~~ELEMENTS OF OUR TECHNOCRACY:~~
The ?infrastructure? label that I use when referring to Windows is the equivalent of the types of engines used in the auto industry (Gas=Windows diesel=MAC). These represent the structures of our ?technocracy?. As these structures mature and become more stable there will be reluctance or less of a need to change that part of the structure. The OS development cycle will become longer (as we are now seeing) and more changes will be seen in the applications and communications environment.
Jagadeesh Venugopal
Your points about bloated code in the OS are not without merit and have be discussed ad nauseum.
I?m not sure that I would agree on your conspiracy theory. Collusion between large corporations is known (and perhaps expected). However if discovered and argued to be monopolistic has very heavy penalties (certainly within the American system).
System bloat has resulted in features that have been added to the basic Disk I/O. We now have audio, video, network, plus a vast array of other types of communications. This doesn?t mention the other eye candy that marketing thinks would appeal to consumers to make the product sexy and simple.
As I write this and drawing from my own experience your comments about the Intel/IBM/Microsoft relationship although mentioned before if just not right.
? Microsoft published standards for accessing core OS functions. Example, the large number of companies that have products that run on WIN machines vs the proportionally smaller number of software developers for MAC.
? The compatibility of software between the different versions of the OS compared to MAC OS upgrades.
? The large number of hardware vendors that access to the WIN standard to manufacture hardware compared the very small number of hardware manufacturers for MAC.
But you are right about competitive annihilation of companies. One that comes to mind in the mid 80?s was a networking company called Artisoft with their Lantastic product. They created a cost effect network on the WIN31 OS platform. This product was a low end cost effective alternative to Novell. Microsoft, by building in networking in Win3.11, WIN95 and WIN98 this all but eliminated the company. I think the company now is called Vertical Communications and they?re peddling phones.
From you writing I think that you may be a happier computer user if you joined a band of LINUX loving tree hugging troglodytes.
Your points about bloated code in the OS are not without merit (and discussed ad nauseum). I?m not sure that I would agree on your conspiracy theory.
Collusion between large corporations is known (and perhaps expected). However if discovered and argued to be monopolistic have very heavy penalties (certainly within the American system).
System bloat has resulted when other features have been added to the basic Disk I/O. We now have audio, video, network, plus a vast array of other types of communications. This doesn?t mention the eye candy that marketing thinks would appeal to consumers to make the product sexy and simple.
As I write this and drawing from my own experience your comments about the Intel/IBM/Microsoft relationship although mentioned before is just not right.
? Microsoft published standards for accessing core OS functions. Example, the large number of companies that have products that run on WIN machines vs the proportionally smaller number of software developers for MAC.
? The compatibility of software between the different versions of the OS compared to MAC OS upgrades.
? The large number of hardware vendors that access to the WIN standard to manufacture hardware compared the very small number of hardware manufacturers for MAC.
But you are right about competitive annihilation of companies. One that comes to mind in the mid 80?s was a networking company called Artisoft with their Lantastic product. Created a cost effect network on the WIN31 OS. This product was low end and was a cost effective alternative to Novell. By building in networking in Win3.11, WIN95 and WIN98 this all but eliminated the company. I think the company now is called Vertical Communications and they?re peddling phones.
From your writing I think that you may be a happier computer user if you joined a band of LINUX loving tree hugging troglodytes.
The Dell XPS computer I bought last December was advertised as "Vista Ready," since Microsoft's new operating system hadn't yet been released. The purchase price included an install copy of Vista when it became available.
My disc came in February and it's still in the shrinkwrap.
I chose not to install it because:
1. Vista is a memory hog and would use much of my 2 gigs of RAM just to run the OS.
2. Nikon has apparently decided to "orphan" my negative/transparency scanner by not issuing a driver for Vista.
To suggest that Reidinger is an Apple "fanboy" is something only a Microsoft fanboy would believe.
He's just stating the facts.
I'm not planning to buy a Mac, but I'm not giving up XP until Microsoft stops supporting it.
2) Install the XP driver in vista, duh. printing/scanning architecture is virutally the same in XP and Vista.
3) XP had the exact same problems when it was first released, indeed 10x worse, because most people at the time were running 9x drivers, which is a completely different driver model
4) I don't recommend picking up Vista until after SP1. Not because Vista isn't stable and secure, but it takes a year or two for hardware & software manufactuers to update everything. This is the same recommendation I made for XP nearly 6 years ago.
Then I bought my XPS 410 desktop with Vista pre-installed. There were some issues with drive performance, but these were cleared up when I installed Microsoft's Vista performance and stability patches that were released at the end of August. Overall, I'm happy with my Vista experience. People just need to make sure they arn't trying to shoehorn it into working on hardware that's too old or it wasn't ment to. You NEED at least 2GB of RAM and don't even bother with a PC that's more then 18 months old. Do clean installs and everything will be okay.
This is utter nonsence! Vista doesn't have any effect whatsoever on your abbility to copy or encode DVD's. I do this regularly on my Vista to watch movies on my journey to work without having to have the DVD.
The 'Protected Path' he's referring to only really applies to HD-DVD's and BluRay movies. Yes, this protection means you can't copy these types of movies, but this technology was mandated by Hollywood, not Microsoft. Microsoft has to include this DRM or BluRay and HD-DVD movies simply won't play on Vista. You can't play them on Linux or Mac OX anyway. Eventually, Apple will include support for these formats but that would mean including this DRM technology in OSX as well.
This guy is Testiculating (waving arms around talking bollocks)!
I owned a Vista for 14 days, I helped coach three retired couples to be able to navigate Vista like they were use to with XP. The only "wow" I heard from anyone was the AERO effect on the desktop. Once you get that first "ooooh" feeling out of the way, the rest is down hill.
XP SP2 should be extended for years to come and Vista should be dropped. Corporations will lose billions of dollars if they try and integrate Vista into their networks, and home owners?? Well.....I bet 90% of the intermediate level users to us advanced users will tell you that Vista is pretty, but it's functionality is lousy.
I have never been involved with M$ but neither have I used XP (any version). I usually use Win2K Advanced Server (SP5), for development. I recently bought a HP Pavilion dv6505ez to replace my dead Dell Latitude, which was also running Win2K AS SP4 + CygWin. This is my very first view of MS's more recent OS's (yes, at 30 years in the business, 2002 is recent). I am impressed enough to buy the upgrade to Ultimate so that it can cohabitate with my active directory servers (Win2K AS SP4).
I had considered upgrading Vista to (Win2K AS SP4) but found out that HP doesn't have the drivers and I would lose too many of the laptop's nice features (mostly multimedia stuff).
I don't see the bad functionality. Granted, (Win2K AS SP4) is getting very long in the tooth but a lot of the Vista stuff is very nice and I just finished installing Eclipse Callisto and JBoss is next, plus MediaWiki under Apache (due to the absent IIS).
Yes, the application verifier is annoying. However, it is less annoying than those autorun-in-background virii I occasionally ran into before. I like to know what I am installing and running, thank you, and I am sure that there is a control setting for that feature, somewhere.
All in all, I disagree that Vista is tthat bad, unless it rats me out for that old copy of MS-Office or that borrowed-from-work (I own the company) copy of Visio 5.
- You must have lost your mind.
- by israeljamesbond October 31, 2007 5:36 AM PDT
- I tested the betas of Windows Vista ever since the first one back in December 2005, in two computers:
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 3 of 4 pages (75 Comments)1) Alienware M5500 Notebook
nVidia 6600 Go 128MB, Pentium M 2.0Ghz, 1GB Ram
2) Hp Media Center m380n (Stolen in January of this year)
nVidia 7600GS, Pentium 4 3.2Ghz, 1GB Ram
And actually I use Windows Vista Ultimate Retail on the Alienware notebook and a new desktop PC I made for less than $700 which includes: Pentium D 3.2 Ghz, 1GB Ram, nVidia 8600GT, Viewsonic 22 inch display... and I must tell you Vista performs faster and better than XP did on both systems. I saw Vista evolve from that December 2005 beta into its final release, and it was very unstable back then, and I have no problems at all right now. I have every single driver installed, my computers never crash with Blue Screens of Death, every application runs faster than they did on XP and even some games have higher FPS compared to how they used to perform with XP. Whoever goes back to XP after experiencing Vista is crazy, I cant go back to XP at all right now. Vista looks so much better, is so much faster and secure (I turned off UAC by the way) and just feels so much newer and has everything XP lacks without the need of installing lots of 3rd party programs that used to slow you down. About you saying how pricey Vista is, I must say you are plain crazy. People pay $129 for Mac OS X updates that add stupid things, why cant you pay less than $100-$200 for these "high end" versions of Vista when it is a completely new operating system rather than a simple update? You are just showing you are a Mac fanboy with a bias against Microsoft. By the way, Vista is already running on over 88 million computers... Mac OS X doesnt even have half of that. Keep dreaming of Apple capturing more than their small market share with their minor update Leopard. Vista is much prettier than Mac Os X is. I remember when I used XP I used to try to make it look like a Mac, now with Vista I dont even care about it. End of story.