Microsoft believes Apple is winning the battle on the desktop using "lies" and "myths" against Windows Vista, and has promised to fight back. Evoking the spirit of his apple-cheeked little daughter, Microsoft's vice president for Windows consumer product marketing Brad Brooks promised partners that by telling the "truth" about …
Microsoft believes Apple is winning the battle on the desktop?
which vista lies
Wondering which vista lies he's going to bust. Maybe the one about Vista performing well saleswise? Or the one about vista not being a whole load of bloat?; maybe those myths about vista running slow?
Or maybe that myth about vista being a good product.
Vista is pretty good...
... It's a damn sight better than XP.
It's just not worth spending large sums of money on. Don't bother upgrading hardware, and don't bother spending lots of cash on upgrading (if your a business).
However, if it comes OEM on a new PC, or if your a sensible IT Manager and upgrade your hardware every 3 years and get free upgrades from MS then it's a great platform. Took about a year for the majority of the 3rd parties to get drivers out, and also for hardware to play catch up - but now there is no good reason to avoid Vista.
Solid, stable, secure and fast platform on any hardware built since 2006. Go for it.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics
"Brooks skirted over what the lies were."
Well, that certainly makes for a compelling argument.
Lies, damn lies and Vista
"When you make an investment in Windows Vista, it's going to pay forward into the next generation of the operating system we call Windows 7,"
Why is Microsoft going to give Windows 7 away to Vista users?
It's not Apple that we're running too...
it's ubuntu. I can deal with the functionality issues, but between M$ and HP, they have made it clear that I am not in charge of my PC, they are. It was about then that I turned away, n'er to return.
How bout they listen to the consumer rather than the Pro IP groups?
Trusted computing can not be trusted.
You have pointed out Vistas' flaws
Cancel or allow ?
Well, at least Apple users like Apple.
MicroSufferers may snigger at Apple fanbois and their silly overpriced white toys but at least they love the products and the company.
We, meanwhile, don't just hate Windows, we detest Microsoft. Their overpaid bullies bleating about how the latest turkey is misunderstood ain't gonna change that.
Just give us an operating system that's slim, reliable and cheap -- that's the only way they'll earn any respect.
Pots, Kettle &c
Using lies and myths to trash the competition. Now I wonder where Apple might have learned such techniques?
Mac vs Vista. ROFLOL
The only *real* competition that Mac has is Linux. OSX isn't very hacker friendly. You just can't download and recompile the libc or kernel to your liking. Still, I'm installing Linux before Hackint0sh.
Vista has been fine since SP1
While I certainly think Vista had problems in it's first year, since the release of SP1 I have moved all 3 of my work systems over to Vista and it runs very well (even on a 3GHz P4) Very rarely crashes compared to XP and is just a much nicer place to be.
Vista media center runs my home entertainment very well and even Apple's front row pales in comparison.
I'm sure M$ will learn from their mistakes and since Win7 will be using the same kernel it will be nice for M$ to stick with the system for a while like with XP.
I have been running Leopard X86 and it does seem to run faster than Vista on the same hardware, although Leopard does seem to be a step back stability wise from tiger, It also seems to still have a few performance bugs on intel(as witnessed on my wife's macbook).
I think most of Vistas detractors are just unable to move to a new system and actually manage to learn the differences in the new system before they run screaming back to what they know, bear in mind most of the incompatibility problems came from software houses trying to suck their customers dry for "Vista versions" of their software instead of just releasing a compatibility patch (ADOBE I MEAN YOU !)
If Apple really want to fight M$ then how about a PC version of OSX, Redmond would shudder to its core !
Well written article
"And whether it's the power of the TV spot or Microsoft's own ineptitude in delivering a delayed operating system that was too bloated for most PCs already out there to handle and that lacked adequate third-party support..."
I don't watch TV anymore, but I do remember those annoying Apple commercials (though when I saw them, they were not mentioning Vista specifically). And yes, those commercials did raise my blood pressure because they were factually inaccurate, and some where definitely downright lights. There was misinformation and lies they spoke about "PCs" (especially since Linux runs on "PCs" as well), and there was misinformation and lies spoken about Apples. Did any of us expect any different, though?
Vista is, not to put too much of a point on it, a piece of crap. It came installed on my notebook and I tried to use it for a couple days, but it was too bloated and too slow. Even the automatic updates couldn't get me any meaning time estimate. I wiped it and installed XP and never looked back.
"There's a conversation in the market place right now and it's plain wrong," he claimed. "Windows is awesome... Windows Vista is a good product."
The way he is quoted, it sounds like the second part of his quote is the conversation referred to in the first part of his quote. In that case, I'd have to agree.
so windows is 'awesome' but vista is just a 'good product'
which is better 'awesome' or 'good'?
and which version of windows is 'awesome'?
for the record using a mac, for a whole range of reasons, one of which was being wrongly called a pirate for having installed XP on the same machine three times in a week in an attempt to get the video card to work (drivers kept killing it, *not* microsofts fault). after WGA I gave up.
XP is actually pretty good, OS X is better..
windows application availability v OS X application availability...
everyone knows the answer to that. (sorry apple)
Not too impressed with Vista?
Yes, Ubuntu is very nice... Just want to remind some and inform the rest that, its a Debian heart that beats inside of Ubuntu.
We have been using full blown Debian desktop computers for many years now.
Running with half a dozen good web browsers to choose from and tremendous office products I would have to say that people still dependent on Windows for most common desktop needs are flogging themselves with obsolete products.
Any really good Linux will outperform the best Windows has to offer with a certain ease that leads to confidence in computing.... But my vote goes to Debian :)
"" Also, Microsoft needs to get partners familiarized with Windows Vista ahead of Windows 7, as that OS will use the same hardware specifications. "When you make an investment in Windows Vista, it's going to pay forward into the next generation of the operating system we call Windows 7," Brooks said. ""
Is that going to be like Vista-"capable"?
Mine's the one completing my tux...
I have no interest in Vista at all.
Its not that its a bad OS, it isn't too bad really. but my laptop, which is about a year and a half old now, wouldn't run it very well, so it makes sense to use Ubuntu on it, because it is fast stable OS with good support for most applications, and I can do everything I want to do with my laptop using ubuntu. My main desktop uses XP. Its a pretty good OS, and runs rather smoothly, and whilst it remains to be a good, well supported OS, I have no interest in moving to Vista, because XP is perfectly good.
Cancel or allow? That is plain annoying. I wanted to copy a file to my program files folder from a network link and I ended up getting 3 dialogs for this one action. The first was a pretty dialog asking me if I really wanted to do that. Next was a plain dialog asking the exact same question. Next was a dialog telling me that I could not do that. What a pain. Ask the question once, please or we will all have to turn this crap off.
Speaking as a Microsoft fan, who actually likes Bill,
I have to say those little things Microsoft have done of late.
Blocking what I can do with the machine,
Removing little buttons I rely on, and just making buttons change location depending on what I do, - This incenses me.
asking me if I want to do something when I've just started to do it, - I almost want to smash the computer at this point.
Hanging for no reason.
Putting some ridiculous combined search when I know what I want to doContinually thrashing the disk to Index Gigabyte sized files that I could never open with ay application.
Having some ridiculous front end. I've just got into the habit of automatically converting back to "Windows Classic, Show All files and their extension, remove language bar, Remove ludicrous menu filtering," because I've done it a thousand times, and they introduce more stupid look and feel.
Why can't I just defrag now?
I'm so angry with Microsoft, because I know quite a lot of their guys, and all the backend guys are super geniuses who are so good that the only competition they have is from the courts because they make everyone else go out of business, just look at Linq or instance, but there's a load of artists, who should be paid nothing, demanding what it should look like and how I should tell it what to do, none of whom would be there if they had to work for a living, and none of them who have to develop stuff in the interfaces they've provided for me.
Vista needs debugged
It's the same story as XP, it needs some debugging and polish. It's too hungry on memory and too slow on low end machines.
The user protect system can't be used because it has the ten second memory of a goldfish..... is it ok to run this program? is it ok to run this program? is it ok to run this program? I guess lawyers insisted on that? I turned it off.
It's DRM'd badly, it can turn off outputs to enforce content protection in a way that previous versions of Window didn't. You lose some control with Vista. I won't use it on a media machine.
Fonts are smooth scaled, and less hand optimized, not as crisp at the normal working sizes but smoother at larger sizes.
Calender pops up for no apparent reason in bottom right corner.
Software hangs a lot, but perhaps that's the software. (e.g. Visual Studio class browsing prone to this).
If you press Alt-Tab the little mini views are updated live. (Although you have to figure out what the application you want to switch to would currently be showing in order to see which to switch to,).
There's a key that stacks the windows diagonally. Don't use it myself, but it looks pretty and the view dynamically update.
It has nicer clocks.
I'm not really sure why anyone would upgrade. For what gain? The marketing was 'it's about the Wow', meaning eye candy, but the candy has all been seen before and better on other platforms.... it was very late and the glitz did kind of wear off.
What can I do with it, that I could do with XP? Seems to me I lose a little with the DRM, but I can't see what I gain?
Suddenly I'm reminded...
...of that first prison scene in "Hancock."
Extra credit if you can tell who's who in what position.
Re: Frank Thomas
Why would they do what their customers want, when they can tell them what they want, and copy the glorifying success that IBM had dominating the PC market in the 80's? Oh wait...
Who controls your computer?
@ Frank Thomas
I couldn't agree more. I eventually ditched XP for Ubuntu and haven't looked back. I'm now in control of my machines (and not, as you say, MS, HP, Adobe and the other corporate upgrade and bloatware pushers), These days I run unrestricted computers that don't issue me with 'permits' for the tasks I wish to perform and the tools I wish to use. I've spent the last year and a half learning real skills that in many cases will last for decades as opposed to MS's next marketing campaign or upgrade drive. I've broken out of the proprietary software trap and it feels great; computers are fascinating again!
Any regrets? Perhaps inevitably, games, and one or two industry standard graphics tools. But then that's what consoles and Macs are for, isn't it? (Besides, who has time for games?) ;-)
"Apple's has grabbed 6.6 per cent of the desktop market in the US during Windows Vista's lifetime."
Was that usually about 10 per cent? Apple's share is shrinking?
"No wonder the world hates thier IT departments"
No wonder IT professionals hate end users.
I have more to say on this subject, but I'm too busy downloading porn to the drive that's supposed to be backing up Mark's data.
""When you make an investment in Windows Vista, it's going to pay forward into the next generation of the operating system we call Windows 7"
Personally I take it as a threat. What this means to me is that the only people that will find Windows 7 bearable are those that have had the awfulness deadened somewhat by using Vista.
Vista is a damn sight better than XP? I'll take an ounce of what you're on mate. I suppose if you think your computer is running too fast or you don't like security software taking up valuable resources that could be devoted to shiny objects, then yes I reckon you'd be right in saying it's better.
All I know is if XP patches stop and the only alternatives are Vista or something worse than Vista, then I'm going to find myself a third option.
As for Macs gaining market share, well duh! If you create an OS with hardware requirements as steep as Vista is it really any wonder that Macs have actually become a viable option?
This is the famous trick of the PC. It requires hardware so powerful that only the informed understand its possible to run a decent GUI on sensible gear.
You can't really blame them, because their experience is such that using what should be a normal amount of resources results in an unstable and slow system.
It's like saying my car is so powerful, it needs a 4 litre, V8, turbo charged engine with a nitro kit to run at 30mph, and is so fuel efficient it can actually drive 100 miles on a single tank of 250 gallons of petrol.
So no, I won't be installing Vista. And I won't be using Windows 7 either if it requires experience of Vista to make it bearable.
Linux is the real enemy...
Microsoft just doesn't want to mention that Linux even exists and is free and runs on the same hardware as windows...
Microsoft Pledges to Fight Vista Myths..
..that Vista is better than OSX, starting with Steve Ballmer:
Anyway, I'm an XP man personally, I've tried Leopard and Vista and hated them both, too many stupid animations and flashy graphics which are a waste of time. I just wanna get on with using my damn computer!!
"There's a conversation in the market place right now and it's plain wrong," he claimed. "Windows is awesome... Windows Vista is a good product."
That conversation IS wrong!
Mac adverts are irritating
These Mac adverts have bugged the hell out of me for 2 reasons. Firstly, they skim over the really important details. Secondly, they should be illegal in the UK where advertising is not allowed to directly mention or slag off competition. If the same advert were run in reverse it would be illegal, but PC was judged to mean a general category of product - not just a Microsoft product - despite the fact that the vast majority of PCs run Windows.
I really wanted to run a counter campaign - and if I was rich enough I would have done. Something that goes along the lines of:
PC: "I run all the software you need for your business."
Apple: "I can draw pretty pictures, slowly, and that's it."
PC: "I run on loads of different hardware."
Apple: "I run on 1 type of hardware, it's pretty, but also damned expensive."
PC: "There are tonnes of developer tools for me."
Apple: "Because I'm a crippled version of another OS, lot's of developer tools will fail when you run them on me."
Linux will take another step forward this month with the full release of KDE 4.1. I've been using he betas on Kubuntu for the past month or so and have to say it's a big step forward over KDE4.0 and dare I say it, even KDE 3?
As for Vista....er, no thanks. When I do have to use WIndows it'll be XP until Vista becomes necessary. Anything else proprietary, well that's what my Mac's for!
BTW 6.6% OSX share? Is that only counting new sales? I thought it was just under 8% installed base now?
Any relation to the BOFH?
Oh my god....
This is so boring! How many ucking times do we have to listen to this argument, and worst how many people even bother taking part!
Windows is good for people who want it *easy* (apart from when they really need it easy)
Linux is good for anyone who cares enough to recompile their entire lib....la wah wah wah every time they cough, sneeze or change a screen saver
MacOS is great for my mum who finds it hard to work the oven timer, and then finds it even harder to even work out how to use her mac.
IT ALL DEPENDS! And at the end of the day even working in IT I really couldn't give a flying! My customers can use whatever the hell they want AFAIAC, whatever they use they'll spend thousands securing it and complaining it's too slow / complicated / not compatible / not secure / expensive / not future proof* but they will end up with whatever happens to fit best within their org- stop dreaming about an amazing OS that does it all, one day you might wake up and see there's more to life than supporting a ruddy OS.
*delete and replace as you see fit...
I think the phrase that annoyed me the most in the apple ads was "Macs don't crash" .... AARRRRRGGGHHHH somebody get me a gun.... They have clearly never had to use pro tools on the mac.
Too Little; Too Late
Microsoft is just now getting around to doing this? I believe this type effort is referred to as a last gasp or the death rattle.
The 6.6 % and beyond...
Hopefully, in an ideal world, Apple would get to have 15-20% of the market.
And MS would have 15-20%.
And Linux distros another 15-20%
And Solaris, yet another 15-20%
Then everyone would be forced to REALLY follow standards, write portable code, and etc. It's that old, tired car analogy all over again: imagine if each car model had a very different user interface, or operated on very different mechanical principles, or used completely different materials, etc. Somehow, we put up with that in computers. Is it really necessary?
Anyway, I finally got to use Vista for a couple of weeks, as I vacationed back home and all I had to use was Mom's laptop. A 6-month old machine, dual core, 2 GB RAM. Vista was not too bad after finally started, although it definitely was a waste of resources -- not very responsive, but usable. Booting time was loooooong (as was shutting down), but after that it performed acceptably enough -- way slower than Ubuntu running from a 4GB USB stick on the same machine. And don't yap about those other apps being loaded; they are essential to a Windows machine, so it IS fair to count their load time as Windows loading time. Anyway, I did not see anything special about Vista, compared to XP, say. The interface does not seem better, in many cases it's just changing for change's sake, it seemed to me (which is irritating when you're trying to find something you *used to know* where to find but now is elsewhere). Pretty pointless, really. Oh, and the "security" is really irritating, most of the time. No wonder they need to force people (apart from the fanboys, of course) to "upgrade" to Vista.
I just didn't use the Ubuntu stick all the way because the USB wireless modem there was a Windows-only piece of crap, i.e. no net with the Penguin... That's what I meant with my first lines up there.
So let's be clear ...
Vista has been at GA for a year and a half, and has had its first service pack. It is now the only version of Windows which is available at retail, and has been pre-installed for over a year. Only Vista offers Direct X 10, which is being used by new games. Yet its take-up in the business sector is still minimal, and MS are saying "it really isn't as bad as everyone says".
It really is bad for MS. Domestic users like my mum and dad don't want to change anything on their machines, but XP out of the box *will* degrade with use once you've combined Indexing service, variable sized page files and usn journaling sprinkling unmovable blocks through filesystems - they just get slower and slower. Domestic users don't tend to rebuild their machines, they think "I must get a new computer", and until WEEE, we ended up with loads of heavy metals ending up in landfill because Win 95/98/2000/XP is configured out of the box to self destruct over time.
Most people who might have a computer now have one, and a good proportion would keep it until the hardware fails were it not for Windows. So, despite this upgrade treadmill, they are having trouble getting people to use Vista despite giving them no choice. How bad is that?
or, I could take that improved hardware, run a decent os, or even XP, and since the system is running faster than the old machine (as opossed to just running the same as the old machine if you install vista on the new one) and take the performance bonus thatactually justifies the it spend
I'm off the update treadmill
GM/Toyota/Benz may release a new model each year, but this does not force me to consider updating the vehicle which I bought just two or three years ago.
"No wonder the world hates their IT departments. You''ll all a bunch of nerds."
You'll regret saying that when your subnet drops out when you are trying to download your donkey pr0n.
I've been farting about with Macs, Windows boxes and Linux machines recently, and so far my favourite *nix is whatever is installed as the backend to my draytek load balancing router.
Mmm, failover, mmm.
Steven "Nerd" Raith :-)
*Even* on a 3 Ghz P4??
> While I certainly think Vista had problems in it's first year, since the release of SP1 I have moved all 3 of my work systems over to Vista and it runs very well (even on a 3GHz P4) Very rarely crashes compared to XP and is just a much nicer place to be
Well great... That's just great. I've got a media center, two workstations, and two laptops running XP, and the fastest of these is a 1.8 Ghz Sempron. And Vista runs well *even* on a 3 Ghz P4? This leaves me with nowhere to go... These machines work perfectly fine; I'm not inclined to turn them into toxic landfill anytime soon.
Horses for courses
Although I agree that the Apple ads are irritating and full of lies I switched to using one recently. I was a die-hard (no I don't run around in a vest carrying guns) XP fan the constant patch updates and need for annual reinstall to get around the performance time-bomb really got on my tits.
I needed a laptop and couldn't be doing with Vista so chose a Leopard endowed MacBook. It has it's faults but so far it's more bearable and requires less maintenance - time may tell a different story - and all users in my household are ok with it. The iMovie and iDVD software is up to the job for the novice user and a welcome freebie.
I did consider Linux but I use Lightroom for my photography and, sorry *nix fans, the GIMP doesn't cut it (especially as it's more of a Photoshop competitor). There was an option of using BlueMarine but it was still beta and lacked the abilities and polish. Also the linux movie editing software did nothing for me. However Linux does power my raid enabled media/file server and always will. This is a job that it does outstandingly.
I have kept XP on one machine for the following reasons: Mathematical software, EAC, DVD Decrypter, DVD Shrink, AutoGK. This software is where it excels - I have tried Mac the ripper and FFMpegX but they just don't quite work as well. It also used to be a media center PC until I got a DVD player that played just about every DivX/Xvid variant. It may go back to that role when more HD content becomes available.
What am I prattling on about? Simply that each OS has it's pluses and minuses and I think my usage show this. Apple for arty media stuff, Linux for server (or mom and pop desktop) and XP for the extensive free applications and ripping tools.
Vista is better than XP?
Ha! Vista came installed on my Dell Dimension E521 with 1GB of RAM. It was unusable due to lack of memory until I added another 2GB (3GB total) of real RAM. At this point I tried Windows XP/64 on a second disk. My applications ran a lot faster under XP/64. So I went out and paid $130 for an OEM version of XP/32 - and that runs faster still.
If Vista or Win/7 needs better hardware than an AMD 3800+, Nvidia 7600, 3GB of RAM and an Audigy sound card then you can roll it up and sit on it. I'm not buying new hardware until something critical fails on this setup.
...trust me, the Windows 7 will rock!
To say I dislike Vista would be an understatement. I could write pages about how much I detest this albatross of an operating system.
But you know what, when Windows 7 is unleashed upon the world it will be Microsoft themselves that says Vista sucks, please rush out and buy our new Windows 7. It will solve world hunger, bring world peace, cure all disease and and...just buy or the puppy gets it!!
Never even bothered to get XP, myself
And why not? Because I just never encountered a reason to. I'm still running 2000 on my windows machine, and the only problem I've had is that I can't watch live videos on netflix. That's it. Everything else works. So . . . why upgrade again?
Microsoft is right in that they completely failed to get out the message of why people should upgrade to Vista. I heard the hype before, during, and after it got introduced, and not once did I hear any actual discussion of what it could do that older versions couldn't do. What I gather is that they redid the DRM and the security, made some changes to the user interface, and greatly restricted the range of hardware that it could run well on. And that's STILL all I've heard about the difference between Vista and XP. If there are any other differences, I can honestly say I've never even heard of them.
Anyway, these days I'm usually on a mac. Which also works. Pretty much the same way, once you get used to the differences in the UI.
the DRM focus
Well, Until the damn built-in DRM is removed from Vi$ta, forgetaboutit. We're not little kids, we don't need no big brother to watch over us. And I absolutely believe that dispite what they tell us, we do have the right to put a copy of our DVDs on our Portable Media Players.
"Linux is good for anyone who cares enough to recompile their entire lib....la wah wah wah every time they cough, sneeze or change a screen saver"
FUD. Pure FUD. I've been using Linux (various flavors) for the better part of three years and exclusively for seven months and have compiled three times from scratch, ONLY because I wanted to learn how. I'm even using an "experimental", "In Development" window manager (Enlightenment) and am having fewer problems overall than I EVER did under any Win system. I will, however, say you are partially right. People will use whatever fits and all computers crash at some point. There isn't any such thing as a perfect OS. But you WILL keep hearing this argument until MS AND Apple stop claiming to be the perfect, fits all OS that does everything, never crashes and runs everything all the time.
Paris. Because you can't have a comments section here without her.
heard it all before
This latest PR reminds me of GM and Ford running ads about how they're such a big part of the green world of tomorrow - while continuing to sell the same tired old designs.
MS only worried about Apple sales?
That's what the really sad part of them is... They think Apple is the one to try and watch...
Perhaps they should watch these:
re: So let's be clear ...
"Vista has been at GA for a year and a half, and has had its first service pack. It is now the only version of Windows which is available at retail, and has been pre-installed for over a year. Only Vista offers Direct X 10, which is being used by new games. Yet its take-up in the business sector is still minimal, and MS are saying 'it really isn't as bad as everyone says'."
You forgot the part where companies such as Intel and IBM have publicly stated that they will not use Vista because of its incompatibilities and poor performance. That wasn't exactly a "pro" on the Vista pro/con list :)
re: *Even* on a 3 Ghz P4??
Heh, I got a kick out of that comment, too. I find it absolutely amazing how many of the Vista supporters point out things like that as if they're some major feature. These people actually seem surprised that an operating system (even with no applications running) can manage to operate on what really is high-end hardware. Yes, we have faster processors out there, but 3GHz really is high-end, as is 1GB+ of memory. These same people act as if it should be expected that your newer, faster, expensive computer visibly runs at the same speed as the "outdated" one you're replacing. If it runs at the same speed, then why am I "upgrading"?
If you told me ten years ago that my Athlon 64 3800+ 1GB system or my Core 2 Duo T7200 2GB notebook would visibly run as slow as my K5-166 64MB system, I would have said you were crazy. Systems with 20-30X the raw speed performing just as slowly? It would never happen. And yet here we are. The operating system should be small and fast. Quite frankly, so should the GUI. And patching any software product (for example, the browser) should not require a reboot.