Brand Perception?

Well as an open source guy here is my "brand perception" of MS:

Microsoft is a criminal organization that has maintained a consistent pattern of unlawful activity throughout its entire corporate existence.

Leopard, spots etc comes to mind...

Resistance....

...is futile.

Beta release? They've heard of it

I love the way Microsoft has been pulling the wool over punters' eyes for years.

They release a new, more convoluted O/S then, when things start going pear shaped they always come back with the reply "Oh, things will be better on release of the first, second, third etc service pack." And yet they still get people to pay for this sort of scam.

No wonder people are moving over to Apple and Gnu/Linux where things just work. I hear some people saying "Linux ?" Yes, that's right, most distros these days with the exception of Gentoo and its ilk just load and run. Having just retired from supporting Microsoft's product I certainly do not miss the scrabbling around looking for drivers, loading on anti malware, waiting for patches etc. Needless to say I run Gnu/Linux.

Smiley because billg and his appalling messes kept me in a well paid job for years cleaning up after him.

@Mike

I think the point you are missing (and this has been made before) is that there is no net benefit from adding the extra hardware to 'allow' Vista to run right. You don't get anything (functionality, stability, security, user experience) substantially better than XP. So, it always comes back to the question, why bother?

Let the flame wars begin!

Vista for get it

Mike says vista is fine I have a brand new machine 2 gig mem latest Intal chip vista is still slow (running ultimate)

Drops off line for no reason. when on wireless wont let me move certain music files compared to XP slow cumbersome and crap compared to Ubunto even slower more cumberson and more crap.

@ Mike

Why must I buy a machine with 2GB of RAM and a fancy graphics card just to run an Operating System ?

If I just want to do some word processing, spreadsheet, browsing, and maybe a bit of photo editing, why do I need such a high-end computer ?

Until Vista came along, we all had far more computing horsepower than we needed. Now Vista is here, we don't have anywhere near enough. This smacks of either sloppy/bad programming, or bloatware. Sites such as http://www.win2008workstation.com/ seem to suggest it's bloatware.

Paris - cause no-one could accuse her of having any bloat

1/2 gig ram...

I have excellent performance on this here 5 year old system with only 512 megabytes of RAM & 2.6GHz processor... however, I'm NOT running Vista... or even XP... I'm running Ubuntu...

Re:You know what the retarded thing is?

Interesting point by Mike. Apparently its not MS fault, its the fact that hardware manufacturers did not meet MS system demands. This is a little bit like putting the cart before the horse.

The fact is, why can't I run vista on 256 MB, 1 GHz processor especially if I am only going to browse the internet etc. Vista is like a all you can eat banquet when all you want is a quick sandwich. Or to paraphase Terry Prachett, if asked customers would tell you they want a 20 course banquet, when in fact all they really want is a plate of sausage and chips with perhaps a tomatoe on the side

It goes to show the lack of MS foresight. They blindly assumed we would continue to want faster and faster machines and they could be lazy with the vista hardware spec. Fact is I would say most people hardware requirements were met about 2 or 3 years ago(I am not talking about hard-core gamers here, just the 95% of other people) and unless a killer app comes along that increases that requirement why shouls they change.As such Vista overshot the mark. Why buy a new PC just to run vista when your present hardware does everything you need and more.

The other market trend is for simpler devices such as netbooks, that does not offer all bells and whistles but does enough functionality in a cheap package. The fact that MS has had to desperately ressurrect windows XP for this market just goes to show how prescient MS really is.

One thing I hope to see in Windows 7 is a truly modular OS, like linux etc that instead of telling people what they require actually meets peoples requirements

Re:tarded

"If you followed the technology curve between 1996-2002, a gigabyte of RAM should have been the standard around 2004, and they should have been transitioning to 2 gigabytes right about then."

This, and your other remarks, are all very true but I think it is missing the point. *Why* should operating systems have followed the "technology curve"?

Over the period 1980-1995, the "OS" had gone from a thin wrapper over the BIOS to a full UNIX-style OS with security, device abstraction, multi-threading and memory protection. Over the period 1995-2010, the only significant change is the inclusion of a full network stack (or two, if you run IPv6).

Now, it is true that what people use machines for has changed significantly, and video-editing is rather more demanding than maintaining a stock control database. However, that's *applications* and for those who aren't running them the cost shouldn't matter. It *is* fair to compare (say) NT4 with Vista for the common case of just sitting there surfing the (modern day) web. I think you'll find that NT4 wipes the floor with Vista on the same hardware. *That's* what folks are complaining about, the *irreducible* bloat in recent versions of Windows.

Moore's Law is very nice, but let's not lose sight of the fact that our toys exist to do a job, and if the job hasn't become any harder then it *is* reasonable to assume that the cost shouldn't have gone up either. Too many people in the IT industry seem to take bloat as a given. People outside IT don't understand that. It's not true in any other walk of life.

@Mike

So how come my girlfriend's dual core 2gb vaio pre-installed with vista runs as if it only had 256gb of Ram? Whenever I have to do anything with it - ie try and remind it that we do have an internet connection etc... it takes such a long time to open a window I usually leave the room and put the kettle on.

She is begging me to upgrade it to Win XP - fortunately sony have just released XP dirvers for her particular model so it won't be an issue shortly.

to mike

In your analysis you seems to forget one point: people want to run applications, not operating systems! Do a browser, a word processor, a music or video player really require much more than 512 Mb if ram right know? I don't think so.

The role of an operating system is to manage hardware resources and make them available to the applications that the user want to run. An OS that requires 1 Gb of ram to run a web browser that only require 250 Mb of ram to run properly is failing to do what it should. Improvement of hardware can lead to two things: more powerful computers OR cheaper and lighter computers, clearly consumers are now choosing the second option. I remember it was not long ago that my computer's RAM cost me around 100€, a significant part of the computer cost. Now I would not accept to pay more than 50€ for ram or even 20€ for an entry level machine.

A function of an OS is also to make hardware accessible. Changing the driver model so that older drivers won't work with the new version of the OS and making the new driver model so difficult to work with that it requires a major investment to develop drivers is counter productive. when the general buy a piece of hardware (scanner, printer, soundcard) they get a driver on a disk. If they buy a new computer the expect to just have to put that disk in and have the OS manage with it. If the OS don't because it can't work with the old driver and the OS manufacturer didn't include a compatible driver, it's the OS failing. Microsoft deciding to change the driver model and then expecting manufacturers and users to pick up the cost of the change in driver development or non functioning material is just crazy: MS wants to force changes in the driver model, then it's MS responsibility build a new driver for every piece of legacy hardware out there. If your bank decide to change their ATM system and you require a new bank card they will ensure you get a compatible card for free and in time or there will be outrage amongst the customers, why would it be different in the OS world.

Vista criticism over-stated

I’ve been running Vista continuously since November 2006 on my Dell laptop, and the only irritation has been that I upgraded to Vista without uninstalling all the Dell crapware.. for months I got compatibility dialogs for software I couldn’t uninstall.

In a year and a half, I’ve rebooted (as opposed to sleep or hibernate) twice.. once to remove Dell crapware loaded as device drivers, and the other to install SP1. That’s pretty good availability for a development machine.

It is not churlish to say that XP’s quality has damaged Vista uptake.. with eight years of patching it is mature and stable. Vista’s problem is that it is late, early and irrelevant:

• Late because 2003 was the year to launch this operating system.

• Early because the next big upgrade is 64-bit and the end of memory swap-files.

• Irrelevant because Aero does not address any mass problems, but the Windows licensing makes PC’s expensive to administer

Dear Mike

It's possible to dislike Vista for reasons other than speed and stability. It runs fine on my PC as well (dual core CPU, 2GB RAM), However, it's a pigging ugly and annoying OS to use. I don't want to go into display properties and get a big window with a paragraph of text explaining what "screensaver" and "wallpaper" are amongst all the settings. That's ugly, messy and completely pointless for anyone other than an absolute novice user. I want the simple one-window tabbed view that you get with XP that's quick to navigate around and doesn't involve multiple windows.

That's just one example of course, but I dislike Vista not because of speed or stability, but because it looks messy - albeit polished. XP is the opposite. It looks clean but dated and I'm afraid I'll take that over messy polish any day.

@You know what the retarded thing is?

MacOS 10.5 manages with 512M, it's perhaps not as quick as it is on machine with 1G but it manages perfectly well. That said, most Apples these days come with 1M. And there's Linux as well, the latest versions also manage to do Vista-like eye candy in 512M. So does Vista do that means it needs 2G?

"These scam artists were still under-equipping their systems with memory, choking off the processor and gutting the performance."

Er, no. Perhaps the correct conclusion is that Vista's a bloated piece of crap and Microsoft understated the minimum requirements to OEMs (see various Register stores). You can be sure that those machines taking part in that marketing weren't kitted out with a memory, hard drive, and processor spec that were considered normal on home machines until Vista came along.

heh heh heh

'Ozzie, inventor of the hated Lotus Notes and now driving Microsoft's "software plus services" strategy...'

Says it all. I'm sure there are still some kool-aid drinking Notes admins who still love the thing... but email system should not equal application platform (MS tried promoting that route in Ex2K, and thank god it's mostly died off - get a proper DMS/intranet/Sharepoint if you must).

@Mike

You said: "Fact is, Vista works. Vista is stable. Vista is fast. If you want to blame someone, blame Dell, HP, or whoever built your PC. They screwed you, not Microsoft"

Yeah, how do you compare how fast the thing is (Vista)? You run it on the same computer were you run the old one (XP). And it is slow.

Maybe you think that the software speed is relative, I mean run XP on a average 2001 computer, it is fast. Run Vista on the average computer of 2007, it is fast. But I like it to compare on the same hardware. It is slower.

Look at the Leopard. MacOSX will be faster *on the same hardware*

Look at Linux. It has the same speed on the same hardware, just more features every year. Heck, I even run full desktop effects (see Compiz) on the cheapest laptop bought in 2003, with 3% CPU usage. This is the meaning of fast.

Get the facts! ;)

@Mike

What? no XP available?

...maybe Microsoft screw Dell, HP or whoever build our PC's?

...again

also, didn't those "nasty" drivers passed WHQL...?

/ I'll leave now :)

You hnow who the retarded one is?

"What I've signed up to do is take this show on the road and make the public understand these technologies aren't born full grown."

He's right. At Microsoft, they are born half-baked.

And 'Mike' - blaming everyone else just doesn't work. It's not the fault of Nvidia, or stupid users, or OEMs or hardware vendors. It Microsoft's fault. If you want to build a fast machine and have it slowed down to XP speeds by running Vista, which is what you appear to be saying, go ahead. At least 'scam artists' and 'jackasses' are not screwing you - you are screwing yourself.

What's even more retarded

Ubuntu Linux runs JUST fine if you have a machine built right.

I've been running Ubuntu Linux for nearly a year, and I've had far fewer problems

with it than I had with Windows XP during its first 3 years.

Do you know why? Because I built my machine properly.

....blah... 2GB... blah... jackass vendor... blah.. MS screwing you the consumer.

There's no secret to the system I built. 2 gigabytes of memory isn't that expensive.

A semi-decent video card isn't expensive either. But these jackasses are screwing you left and right. Nvidia should have had stable open source drivers along with the other hardware vendors, and the OEMs should have put more RAM in their systems. It's hard to blame Canonical when vendors decided to stagnate and screw you. Fact is, Ubuntu works. Ubuntu is stable. Ubuntu is fast. Ubuntu is FREE (as free beer and freedom). If you want to blame someone, blame Dell, HP, or whoever built you PC for not providing a free alternative to MS shite,

They screwed you, along with Microsoft. Put blame where blame is due, and

just go, "Oh, my system runs wonderful with Ubuntu! Even though it's got the same

memory as the system I bought 5 years ago had!"

Whatever medication this guy is on...

... I want some. But he can keep his software ;-)

Out of there minds

Gosh they must have some good drugs at Redmond then.

Talk about rose tinted glasses.

@ Mike

That would be true only if you ignore bloat. Meanwhile in reality, you see the OpenSource OS's and even OS X get leaner and better performing with each release, while Windows does the reverse. It SHOULD be about the users - the majority of people want something that is simple to use, quick, lets them run the programs they use most -and- looks good. Does it require a 3Gb install to do that? Microsofts insistence on support "old" applications is their major downfall I think - there *are* some nice ideas in Vista, but it's all choked up with compatibility issues and so many layers of technology the average person doesn't need to know about, nor will ever care about. That's why Windows requires such high-spec machines. This is why the Leopard can run perfectly smoothly on a relatively low-spec laptop. Apple don't care so much about backwards support. Now this is not always a good thing either (forcing all your users to update their software), but I really think Windows would benefit from a reset. Throw away everything; launch a sleek, small new OS with no backwards compatibility and a UI that doesn't require game-running video cards just to draw a desktop. Personally I don't think there should be a Windows 7 - there should be something else entirely.

I'm with Mike

Undoubtedly I'll get called an MS Fanboy, but I have no problems with Vista.

I've always built my own machines to high specs as I play a games that need a lot of power, and use video editing software that needs RAM and CPU time.

I got Vista when it was first released, and installed it on 1 of my machines. I'll admit that the total lack of drivers from hardware and software manufacturers was criminal. But how much of that is Microsoft's fault? The 3rd party developers new that Vista had been coming along for a long time. Did MS fail to hand out specs to these people?

I've only had a couple of crashes since release, and traced them back to video-driver issues (So nothing new there then).

But the average person on the street shouldn't have to build their own machine just to run Vista.. I bought a cheap laptop recently as I needed one in a hurry when I went on holiday as I didn't want to risk any of my 'proper' laptops. I ordered and Xp laptop, and they supplied a Vista-home model instead.

Lets be clear: Vista Home is a piece of crap. It is nearly as bad as Windows ME. And the laptop is not up to the job, with its single core CPU and 1GB of RAM.

If the general public are installing Vista on pieces of rubbish like this, then they are going to have problems.

Yes, Vista Ultimate is bloated, and uses too many resources. But it is also secure (when you set it up right), and very very stable. But again, the average user isn't going to do these things and is going to have a bad experience.

People seem to have very short memories. All these comments and problems were said when XP was released as well. People were complaining that it was crap compared to Win 98. Now once Vista arrives, XP is suddenly the greatest product on Earth.

I'm not going to say "I've had less problems with Vista than I did with XP" because it isn't true. I never had any problems with XP either. Or 98, or 95, or 3.11, or 2000. That is because I know how to take care of my machines. So while other people are getting trojans and virusii, and getting phished seven ways from Sunday, I don't have problems.

But for the average Joe on the street? Forgeddaboudit.

Mwahahaha

"We have two problems," Ozzie patiently explained. "[First] A number of internal properties we've been selling as enterprise servers and wanted to create a service infrastructure usable by our search assets and the online assets, and [second] that our server business customers have SLA requirements that are substantial,"

Read: "First, our software is crappy and unreliable, and second, every sensible IT guy around knows that." That sounds like serious problems to me. Nothing that a couple more grands in the bribing department can't fix though. After all, people just have to "build the right computer" to run our OS... wait, maybe some people have perfectly good kit that they don't want to discard. Maybe these people will find out that there are OSes that can run on 5-years-old machines, and still offer more functionalities than we ever dreamt of. Sodd it, we'll just have our chief engineer saying we're the bestests, that wil be sorted.

Well, it worked with at least one (1) fanboi. Who, unsurprisingly, focussed on self-made desktop kit while the MS PR stunt highlighted in the article was mainly directed at servers. Go figure...

Penguin because it's the closest match for DragonFly.

@Mike - idiotic

Why should you have to run twice as fast just to stand still? Why does a new OS require the computer to have so much memory, CPU power etc?

OS X ran fine and did everything graphically that Vista copied (badly) on much lower powered hardware.

Ditto for Linux

RE: Mike

THANK YOU!

I finally see an intelligent comment on this.

zcat

Vista's not a dog. It runs just as fast as XP, as long as you give it twice the CPU and about four times the RAM.

Not that I'm complaining. Hardy Heron runs just fine on all those 'old' machines that people keep giving me 'cos they aren't good enough for Vista, and unlike XP I know I'll still have security updates for at least the next 2 and a half years.