Comments on: What if Microsoft doesn't want Vista to succeed?

Is Microsoft happy with all the Vista troubles? It's possible.

[CDubber]

"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."

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.

[Thomas, David]

Or maybe all of their real creativity was focused elsewhere, like one to multiple other projects.

[cporpheus]

I don't see how less competitors results in more innovation. Isn't linux responding mostly to Window's success and is being developed into a better platform? Isn't Apple responding to Microsoft's dominance in the market? Microsoft hasn't even stopped innovating. Many of their Live software (of which I use Writer, Photo Gallery, and Mail) are really good programs.

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.

[MrKleinpaste]

CDubber is correct. Vista sucks and the only one not recognizing this is Microsoft. Even pro-Microsoft enterprises with billions invested in the vendor lock-in features of M$ products refuse to install it. My own company started off with high hopes for Vista and were actually anticipating it's release since it was "so much easier to manage and secure" than XP. We were SEVERELY disappointed. We actually have people begging to have it removed and not deploy anymore.

@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.

[Mark_Anderson]

The problem is that none of you bottom feeders can actually tell me why Vista allegedly sucks.

So, how about it?

[MrKleinpaste]

@Mark_Anderson - Apparently you haven't been keeping up on current technology news. Your ignorance is not our responsibility. If you'd like to espouse bile then by all means please do so elsewhere. The adults would like to have a conversation.

[justgold79]

@Mark Anderson: Slow, non-responsive GUI. Go read this informative article:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2008/11/10/windows-7-faster-or-just-smarter/

[Mark_Anderson]

@MrKleinpaste

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?

[MrKleinpaste]

@Mark_Anderson - As I said. Apparently you need to read. But since Google is too complex here's a couple quick searches:

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.

[Mark_Anderson]

@MrKleinpaste

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?

[seattlesparks--2008]

@Mark_Anderson, I'll bite:

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.

[cporpheus]

Interesting theory. I agree that Microsoft knows and everyone should know that a Microsoft OS will sell no matter what, but I don't agree that it was part of a plan. I think the management of the OS team was horribly handled during Vista and is now being handled quite well with 7.

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.

[Penguinisto]

You have one gigantic flaw in your post: Apple and PPC is far less of a problem than you think, and not because of the stupid "market share" argument.

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.

[karpenterskids]

Wow, that's a VERY good theory.


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.

[Mark_Anderson]

More rubbish from Penguinisto.

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.

[bhweller]

Here's what is wrong with Vista.....I have Windows XP Media Center 2005, it does everything that Vista can do and its faster.

[Mark_Anderson]

Except it isn't.

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.

[rcrusoe]

"Microsoft is using an operating system's troubles to shift its focus from software to the Web."

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.

[tauvix]

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the XBox division of Microsoft is batting 0, seeing as in the last year it's had at least two profitable quarters (1). Additionally, when you look at the core gaming market, they've got the largest market share, and the largest number of exclusives in the pipeline.


(1) http://www.xbox360fanboy.com/2008/04/25/microsofts-xbox-division-turns-a-profit-again/

[MrKleinpaste]

@tauvix - This is the first year that M$ has made a profit on the Xbox series. While that "fanboy" site (They named it not me), states that M$ made a profit, Xbox has been a moneyhole until now.

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?

[Maccess]

"core gaming market?" What kind of contrived nonsense is that? Is that like "the number game console among all those made by a company that also makes software." The xBox and the PS3 pale in comparison to the Wii, and all pale in comparison to PC gaming. There's nothing like contrived criteria to make a laggard appear like a winner.

[Penguinisto]

Sorry Don, but I doubt the conspiracy.

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.

[MrKleinpaste]

Here here. Vista is the ME of the 21st Century. Microsoft's original clientele that just accepted the "Microsoft Way" is heading into retirement. The workforce, and family force for that matter, are computer savvy people that can explore other avenues without regret and marketing researchers show that this is becoming more commonplace.

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.

[Mark_Anderson]

Vista isn't ME. If you think it is then then you haven't used them both.

Or you're a retard. It's one of the two.

[MrKleinpaste]

@Mark_Anderson - What an eloquent vocabulary. And I must say, you bring quite a challenging stance to such a debate. Why, you have me in a corner sir. How do you know me so well as to accurately determine myself to be a "retard". A master of nuance you are sir.

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!!!

[Mark_Anderson]

Actually I think it's because you appear to be all bluster and no substance.

Yes, that's probably it.

[MrKleinpaste]

Says the guttersnipe who's finest retort is "retard". I'll certainly count you in my top ten useless quotes.

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.

[blakghostSP]

waaa... ouch!!! he will learn soon enough about vista's problems but that wass harsh! MrKleinpaste you killed him slowly congrats

[Mark_Anderson]

Sound and fury signifying nothing.

[MrKleinpaste]

@blakghostSP - It's about respect. Other's opinions, whether you agree with them or not, are still valid. Because it's an opinion. The media and M$'s competitors aren't bashing them just because. While Apple's satyrical commercials are entertaining, they are so because satyr requires truth to be funny. There is no argument that Vista has pissed off a lot of people, my office included. Disparaging others experiences because they do not match your own is simply childish and not worthy of being categorized as an adult conversation.

@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.

[gsekse]

The reality is that Microsoft with Bill Gates was marketing driven, it is why it was successfully marketed, but poorly supported and very limited in innovation.

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.

[biffhenerson]

There is no problem with Visa. There is a problem with stupid users of Vista. If you add a trailer to your Ford car and the trailer gets a flat tire do you blame Ford? The problems are device drivers. These are not Microsoft products. Those that are certified by Microsoft will work. People are stupid. boo hoo.

[The_Decider]

LOL

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.

[exmsft]

Microsoft is perfectly happy with the situation because users are now buying Vista Ultimate in order to get downgrade rights. Microsoft gets to count that as a Vista sale, in fact a sale of the most expensive version, and the customer may or may not ever downgrade to XP... Microsoft makes money, the OEM sells a PC, and the customer gets a PC that has the potential to have either OS on it.

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.

[Paluth]

I have to say I completely disagree with you, but I found your point of view interesting none of the less.
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).

[sean_001]

I think the only problem msft has with vista is this relationship with the media, or the critiques. i don't think any of the "problems" that the analysts pointed out was an issue. it is an great operating system in all aspects. For the first time in technology that everybody tell the same lie. a lot of weird things happen in technology right now. like apple, google, those companys' succeess soly based on buzz not technology strength. this will end.

[xylyx3d]

Microsoft will make good software when Hell freezes over. Every one buys their software, so no innovation is needed, and reliability can suck because hey we all buy it and complain. They are to big to die and to dumb to succeed. Expect a government bail out within the next 10 years.

[forever4now]

I think Microsoft is starting to realize that the company AND the OS have become too bloated and unmanageable to remain competitive in the OS market and thus they need to move to the web, to try to recoup the potential lost revenue.

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

[jgoto]

Microsoft is making Lemonade

[Sumatra-Bosch]

Guys,

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.

[ofmyony]

Microsoft is fighting a war on several fronts and is not the company it once was. Apple is a winner with consumers with the Ipod and the Iphone along with the high adoption rate of Itunes. If it has an I in the title consumers are buzzing. Google is leading the way with online Applications.

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.

[justgold79]

Most of the sales figures are OEM sales, and are therefore inflated. Seriously, who have you ever seen buying vista in retail?

[Mark_Anderson]

Sure, because there's no competitor to Windows is there? What we need is another OS provider so people can make a choice. We could call the company something fruity like 'Orange' or 'Pear'.

Then people would have a free choice and the better OS woud obviously win, wouldn't it?

:)

[The_Decider]

It makes me sick that MS counts my last two laptop purchases as "Vista sales".

Vista didn't even get to boot up even once before getting the axe in favor of the vastly superior openSuse 11.

[Mark_Anderson]

You do know you could have bought a laptop with Ubuntu installed that wouldn't have counted as a Vista sale, thus salving your conscience and keeping your sense of moral propriety intact, right?

[PowerOfThree3]

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.

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!