Microsoft FINALLY shoots back!

The main technical problems with Vista are to do with hardware requirements, installation, and activation. Bringing people in to hardware already configured eliminates these from the equation.

The other problems with Vista are the pricing and license agreement. Bringing people in solves those problems, too: They don't have to spend their money or consider the license agreement.

What's left? Well, performance, but I think that's largely been fixed.

Once you remove the things that make it obviously inferior to XP, big surprise: you're left with an OS that isn't obviously inferior.

(Professional geek, including Windows programmer.)

I think a lot of it was carried forward from the legitimate early problems.  

I had been beta testing Vista for a while and when it was actually "released" there really were a lot of driver problems and other software that didn't work well.  I did more testing 6 months later and things were much, much better.  At that time I think I found 1 application I used that had problems on Vista.  

Granted, the application compatability problems should have been solved by vendors releasing Vista-compatible versions sooner, but novice users assume it's Microsoft's fault.

But what do people remember about Vista?  They remember the early adopters complaining on day 3 about how Vista sucks and how you shouldn't switch to it because none of the software works.

Matt, you are very angry!  Man!  I'm with you on the annoyance of all the negative press Vista has received, but it's nothing to get so angry about.

First, I really don't think the problem is writers and journalists pushing their own agenda.  In fact, I think it's ignorance on their part!  A lot of the negative talk against Vista out there is simply relayed.  Apple is obviously not regurgitating, and their feeding the ignorant.

Like Peter, I beta tested Vista (thanks Charlie Owens!), starting in March 2006.  The changes and improvement over the insuing 8 months leading to the November launch were incredible!  In March, Vista beta was largely unusable, but it was still fun to dual-boot.  Gradually it got more and more usable, and when the final product came out, I started using it full-time right away.  And I honestly do not recall having a SINGLE problem then.  The vast majority of devices (mouses, keyboards, printers, etc.) were fine.

But yeah dude, let this one sooth you a bit.

Hardware requirements: "Last three years" doesn't cover it. Even Mike Nash commented on this. I believe this is still before the courts, though, so there isn't much point in arguing it.

Activation: Do a quick search, you'll find any number of people installing Windows with legitimate codes where it fails. This has happened to me four times so far. This is in addition to the sheer length of the codes.

I have to say, I'm a little annoyed that you'd accuse me of stealing Windows. I'm hoping I just misunderstood you there...

Installation: Sure, it's better than XP. I'm not saying it isn't. But it's still a massive time sink.

Actually, one of my biggest complaints is that Microsoft has committed to de-activating hardware if keys are compromised. This means that if some freetard in a basement somewhere manages to extract a key from the same model Blu-Ray I have and posts it somewhere, a few weeks later some of my hardware will stop working through no fault of my own. This is absurd, and makes Vista a downgrade.

Activation keys: I've had activation keys fail more often than I've had them succeed. To Microsoft's credit, it's a quick phone call to fix them. But it's still stupid to have to do it.

As for the lawsuit: It's before the courts. I'll let them decide if Microsoft did something unethical there. It certainly seems like it to me, and to Microsoft's then-managers.

Installation: My point was only that for those already running XP, there's no compelling reason to go through a half hour install.

Keys: With Vista, Microsoft has the technology to render any of your hardware unusable. This is not a surprise; they've done this several times to obscure hardware by mistake. :) The difference is that Microsoft has said they will do so if keys become public. So if you buy some expensive hardware that has some kind of encryption key shared across the run of the hardware and a cracker gets the key out, Microsoft will disable the hardware.

Pick the most expensive hardware in your Vista computer. Next week, it could be something you need to pay to recycle. You'll have no warning, unless you happen to read a reaction online before you get the patch, and no recourse.

This is unheard of in the computer industry, and I can't believe they haven't been nailed repeatedly for it.

Steven - Key revocation was not something Microsoft came up with or wanted to do.  That was Hollywood and the MPAA's doing, MS just chose to implement it (as many other manufacturers have).  It will be forever debated what would have happened if MS had said no to Hollywood.

As you say, it certainly is possible for a hardware key to be revoked, but it is very unlikely.  Obtaining keys from software is much, much easier so that is the preferred method.  We've already seen a high-profile case of software key revocation and it was really no big deal.  I don't think anyone believes any large class of hardware would be disabled this way.  Can you imagine the uproar if suddenly all the Playstations or Xboxes didn't work any more?  That just isn't going to happen.

Also, none of this is even an issue if you don't deal with HD material.  Key revocation of your fancy video card would only disable its ability to output HD content, it won't "break" the card and prevent it from displaying anything.

It's funny to see people's reaction and criticism to the study.  I don't think MS or anyone else supporting the study is pretending this is a full-fledged use case analysis.  The purpose of the study was to see how much of the negative Vista perceptions were based on personal experience and how much were based on public opinion.

To the people who say the users should take Vista home and try installing it on their systems, etc., you're missing the point.  The users who gave "Mojave" an 8.5 without installing it on their own systems and using it at home were the same users who gave Vista a 4.4 without installing it or using it for any significant amount of time.  

These are the same users who walk into an Apple store, play with iTunes and surf the Web on a MacBook, and walk out thinking OS X is the best operating system ever.  Did they try it at home?  Did they have the experience of getting that email attachment from their PC-using friend only to go through hoops trying to get a program to open it?  Did they see an awesome game they couldn't wait to play only to find out it's not available for OS X.  Now before you mention dual-booting into XP or Vista, you'd be relegating the Mac discussion to hardware, which actually is a credit to MS.  Their OS supports tons of hardware combinations to the point where XP/Vista will run on a Mac.  Can I run OS X on my PC?  Nope.

I think MS is just showing that an open mind and a little education can result in over a 100% improvement in perception.  But with Vista, I think the mounting hype due to the delays and the aggressive launch campaign resulted in some disillusionment among the masses.  It was like the Windows 95 launch all over again.  But even though it was eagerly anticipated, people really weren't ready for it.  But I think people got carried away with the negativity, and now that the dust has settled, the pendulum is swinging back to the center.

Windows is MS's heart and soul, so when there's any activity around it, all eyes are on MS.  So, of course, it's expected that with such a major release, the launch campaign would be huge.  But how long is the typical Windows product lifecycle?  How long have we had XP?  7, 8 years?  That's a long time.  And when XP came out, people said it was bloated.  But now we throw XP on a virtual machine with 128 MB of RAM and call it a lean OS.  

Even though there's talk about Windows 2009, etc., the reality is that for the next several years, Windows releases will be based on the core Vista platform.  Vista is an OS for the future--the next 5 years when 64-bit, multiple-GB of RAM and high-end graphics cards are ubiquitous.  However, initially, it comes at the cost of some present use cases.  

Instead of hoping everyone would fall in love with Vista and upgrade right away, I think MS should've set more realistic, albeit less glamorous, expectations.  And, they should've planned on and marketed Vista on a 2-3 year phased launch program: 1st phase marketing and sales activities would be around early corporate adopters; 2nd phase around OEMs and high-end PC users; 3rd phase around corporate and consumer upgrade paths.

But I like how MS is going on the offensive, but in a casual way.  I think trying to defend Vista only feeds the negative FUD machine.  Instead of trying to defend their product, MS should just brush off the criticism and take confidence in their product.  Then, after the initial hardware refresh has occurred and people have gotten used to the new interface and UAC security, the people who continue to gripe about it won't have much of an audience.

"Installation: Sure, it's better than XP. I'm not saying it isn't. But it's still a massive time sink."

I take it you've never had the enjoyment of installing RedHat Linux or SUSE on a system? Or the worst of the worst of the worst... HPUX (talk about a time sink! This one will leash you to the console for about 45 minutes worth of machine specific pre-installation settings and configurations questions, after which... you go home and leave it to install OVERNIGHT!!)

Trust me, as someone who's been tasked with carrying out the installation of all of the above, plus others, on a weekly... sometimes daily basis; and having done several installations of XP on my home computers over the years and a full re-installation of Vista twice now at home... let me just say Windows is a DREAM of an OS to install. Even including the mildly annoying need for telephone activation for your completely legitamate, bought, and paid for key (as I too ran into this issue).  Really i had no idea just how beautifully steamlined and 'user friendly' any/all of the Microsoft Operating Systems from 98 on up were until i met my first legacy platform.  

All in all, investing twenty-thirty minutes of my time answering questions which are simply, for the most part, regarding your preferances and the personalization of the desktop environment is no skin off my back, comparatively.

As for my 'true geek' or 'wanna-be geek' status -- General Systems Prototype Lab Technician for Low-end Servers and Blades at HP in Roseville for 18 months (techs are only contractors though so I've halted my persuit of a career in that field to go back to college and re-align my future to point in the direction of programming or possibly engineering). I'd have to say I'm somewhere in between... a 'newbie true-be geek', if you will.

So I'm a 'wannabe geek' just because I've never had a job in IT? What a load of nonsense! I compile Linux kernels in my spare time, I just happen to be a professional musician.

@ Phil wrote re: Microsoft FINALLY shoots back!

on 07-30-2008 9:19 AM

wrote:

    "So I'm a 'wannabe geek' just because I've never had a job in IT? What a load of nonsense! I compile Linux kernels in my spare time, I just happen to be a professional musician."

No you're a wanna-be geek because you went to the trouble of posting in this thread yet at the same time contributed absolutely nothing of value to the topic of discsusion.

Now, back on subject... I must admit though, I am a little surprised that the nearly constant pestering and persistance of the UAC restrictions, alone, didn't send those users' impressions of the OS plummeting right back down and beyond for an average rating of 1.2.  Especially after considering the majority of home users have probably been running on XP Home Edition which really has got to be the most flexible and forgiving release of what is already the most tolerant and maleable OS out there. Insofaras tricking your system into thinking  it's got different hardware make/model than it actually  has as temporary work-around fix until the patch that fixes it the proper way is released. And basically that the user has the liberty of calling the shots and can, if they chose to, take control of their own machines.

I understand that being so easy for the user to manipulate the environment  opens the way to  a whole new level of security threats and vulnerabilies and what-not. But regardless of the pros or cons of it... to move from the compliant leniancy which everyone is used that is found in XP HE right into the heavy handed thug of a personal bodyguard such as the Vista UAC... Well I think that it just makes for an additional hurdle that consumers will have to get past or they'll just be dissuade even more.