back to article MS products just too cool to comprehend, say MS geeks

When the product sucks but you can't bring yourself to admit the horrible truth, what's the next logical step? Blame the message, the messenger or the recipient of the message. Simple. Microsoft's normally bombastic marketing has begun blaming Windows Vista's poor uptake on the modesty of its own message, while exaggerating …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Pierre Silver badge

    About processors and memory

    Maybe someone needs a bit of a reminder there. Faster processors and faster memory are supposed to exist to do your stuff, well, faster. Obviously. Now run Vista on it, and suddently it runs significantly slower than your old dusty kit, even before you actually try do have anything done. XP is maybe "using only half your 64-bits processor", as Mike puts it (which is quite inacurate, btw), but then how come its a gazillion times faster? Also, you might note that Vista is not the only 64-bit OS around (not even the first, it's been largely beaten by Linux -again-). It's just the less efficient. By far.

    NO, NO and NO, the fact that anyone can now buy what would have been called a "supercomputer" 10 years ago doesn't mean that new OSes HAVE to be crappy and bloated and unusable. They should be more efficient and more functionnal, thus providing an exponential increase in performance when combined with more powerful hardware. Instead of that, the likes of MS think they HAVE to even out the benefits of better hardware by releasing bad code.

    And just another precision, for the nutjobs accusing HP, Dell and the like of selling you less hardware than what you need: these guys make money out of selling you harware. That's what they do. That's why they usually LOVE MS: it keeps people buying new harware every 3 years. I would accuse them of anything, but NOT of trying to prevent you from buying hardware from them (yes, it includes RAM and storage). You'd have to be seriously crazy to think that.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Gates Horns

    forget 64bit, it's the DRM, stupid.

    He's getting very very desperate if he has to revert to the "64bit" tactic.

    I've been working with 64bit chips since around the time of Windows 3.1, as have other users of Alpha, and MIPS, and maybe even SPARC and PowerPC. 64bit OSes have been around for almost as long, it's just Windows that is late to the 64bit party. 64bit is interesting, and has its place (usually on servers or with high end workstation apps), but 64bit CPUs and OSes are irrelevant for routine home use. [I've cut the 64bit techy stuff but Mike is clearly either clueless or bad at explaining]

    That irrelevance is part of the reason why there are almost no 64bit apps for PCs (can anyone name six?). And without the 64bit apps and the 64bit drivers (because the 32bit ones don't give you the alleged benefits), the 64bit OS is pointless. Just like Vista. (Linux has 64bit flavours too, and as with Windows, they're not very relevant at home, but geeks can at least look inside them).

    Now, anyone remember, what's the main point of a computer, and an OS? Iirc an OS is supposed to enable the punter to use the necessary apps and the necessary drivers to get the job done (or run the relevant games, or whatever).

    Instead, with Vista, MS have delivered a DRM infestation, whose primary purpose is as a trusted delivery control and copy protection platform for the favoured entertainment industry pigopolists and their copy-protected oh-so-valuable HD content. Outside that domain, Vista has no benefits that aren't available elsewhere for less.

    Pining for the fjords? Vista will be soon.

  3. Mike

    I'll tell you what I am

    A veteran tech and network administrator. I have been working on computers for 12 years, and building machines for 8 years. I am a network administrator and have managed a network with 7 servers and 200 clients. You want shit hardware? Try 200 IBM Netvista 1.8 ghz computers from 2002 that IBM decided to use up old memory stock on, and instead of using DDR they used 128 megs of PC133. Some of them had IBM Deskstar "Deathstar" drives, but even those were more reliable than the Seagates. I pity the bastards who had to take over that network, what with around a 40% disk failure rate over the course of a year. I tried to source new machines for them, but the funds weren't there.

    Yeah, they sucked. But I made them run, and they ran pretty damn well. I know my shit. I know when a system is running well, and I know what it needs to run well. Those systems should have had 256 memory. They didn't, although with all the machines I cannibalized in a year's time there was probably enough left over. I should note that when you're running an organizational network, open source software is generally considered a security risk because it does not respect network security policies and is of questionable quality. Unless you're utilizing it in a standalone server role, it's generally avoided except for a few industry-accepted applications.

    Point being, I'm well aware of what a machine SHOULD have, and well aware of what you can put in one for any given price. And I'm in tune with my systems well enough to know how they're performing. You dare call me an MS-fanboy, well, I can look at you can call you sheep. "MS BAAAHHHD!!!" That's about all I hear coming from the crowd. What do you propose we use? Linux? It's rotten to the core and totally unsuited for use as an end-user OS. The OS of the future isn't built around a mainfram OS that originated in the 1960's that has a totally flawed and proven-wrong security model. OSX? Enjoy paying money for service packs (what do you REALLY think Tiger, Leopard, etc. are?) and gaping security holes that Apple denies exist. I thought support was supposed to come with the OS purchase price? Look at reality here. If you buy junk hardware, don't blame the software.

  4. Pheet
    Gates Horns

    missing the point

    Mike, I think you've missed the point.

    A new version of an operating system should be better then the previous version. That is, it should be more stable, and *more* resource efficient, proportional to _functionality_.

    Vista (as an OS) doesn't provide much more functionality than XP. (In some cases, such as file copying (a basic OS function), it performs worse) However, the hardware requirements are drastically higher. This is why people say Vista is bad.

    That you need 2GB RAM just for the OS to run decently suggests:

    a) Bad sloppy code.

    b) Dodgy deals with hardware manufacturers

    c) Both

    If you ran XP instead on your super-duper new machine (and think yourself lucky you can afford it), would your applications run faster or not? Probably yes, as there'd be more memory available for disk caching for a start.

    You've a point about hardware vendors being piss poor with drivers, but that hasn't stopped MS Fanbois screaming "Linux is crap" because the vendor doesn't provide (or give the necessary info for) a linux driver for their hardware. MS is in a much stronger position to pressure vendors into providing decent drivers for their OS.

    OEMs aren't entirely to blame either. Look at the class action lawsuit in the US over "Vista Capable" badged machines...

    (FTR, I use FreeBSD. A pox on all your houses! :-) )

  5. Martin
    Gates Horns

    Why did I choose to install Vista on pieces of crap like this?

    Hmmm... choice...

    I'd love to buy a better grade of crap - but, frankly, I can't...

    I'd love to install something other than Vista on it - but it's hard to get a piece of crap WITHOUT it pre-installed.

    Why is it pre-installed on my piece of crap?

    Because Gill Bates says so... d'oh!

    (I haven't really bought a piece of crap - I've got the same crap I bought in 2000 - running Win2k - sweet)

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Linux

    STYLE XP!

    Nuff said.

    Tux cause I don't have to pay Linus or a 3rd party to have a polished looking desktop.

    E-Live GEM (get it, burn it & shut it)

  7. David
    Gates Horns

    Im one of those trolls

    "For Ozzie, inventor of the hated Lotus Notes and now driving Microsoft's "software plus services" strategy, Microsoft will surpass the capabilities of Amazon, forcing even those hateful little trolls in the open source community to come to love its online services."

    I am one of those trolls. Ha ha, and I will never learn to love a convicted and abusive monopolist, no matter what they do. You have to feel good about those you do business with or collaborate with, that is just common sense. The mere mention of Microsoft makes my blood boil.

    I don't like to inflict pain on myself. I will stick with Open Source and Google too.

  8. Lager And Crisps
    Linux

    ...another@ Mike!

    'I should note that when you're running an organizational network, open source software is generally considered a security risk because it does not respect network security policies and is of questionable quality.'

    That is the rhetoric of Microsoft propaganda. A comment which lets everyone here know just where you are coming from and where you stand. You need say no more.

    Plenty of Fortune 500 companies use Linux because it is superior to Windows in both security and stability. They also get to audit the code for their own needs if they wish.

    You parrot the same drivel I hear from MSCEs, MVPs and Windows only server admins. You speak of 'questionable quality' as regards opens source software, methinks you have something to lose if Linux/FOSS gets any greater degree of acceptance.

    The penguin cometh...

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Gates Halo

    @Mike's anti-OSS ramblings (10:02)

    Working on computers for 12 years makes Mike a veteran does it? Even NT has been around for longer than 12 years. I'd have said that based on what Mike's written here it makes Mike look like a clueless noob (there's a lot of them about these days).

    For example, what does "a mainfram OS that originated in the 1960's that has a totally flawed and proven-wrong security model. " mean? What's wrong with the Unix security model? What's better in the Windows one? Who (other than the vendor) says it's better? (Yes we know the "HD content providers" don't like the lack of their preferred DRM in UNIX, but they don't count, thank you, we're talking about computers not overblown DVD players).

    And then there's "open source software is generally considered a security risk because it does not respect network security policies and is of questionable quality." I can't think of any company other than Microsoft 9and maybe the HD content providers) whose employees would be capable of believing statements like that, but change "open source software" to "Microsoft" and the sentence would almost sounds reasonable to quite a lot of quite ordinary people.

    "I thought support was supposed to come with the OS purchase price? "

    Which is why OEM XP Home cost (around) £50 but includes no MS support, whereas the very same XP Home OS in a mostly-empty retail box (no docs) and including some "support" direct from MS cost a small fortune (£200?). Same kind of price difference applies to XP Pro. At those costs/prices, if MS always had to handle the support themselves, rather than the system builder picking up the cost, MS would never sell a PC OS again because it wouldn't be affordable (not even in comparison with Apple). Fail again, Mike.

    I hope Mike's employers are reading his dross, even if everyone else has given up by now. And even if the employers are some top level Microsoft partner, surely they can't really believe the cr*p he's writing?

  10. Shadow Systems Silver badge
    Alert

    @Mike

    Mike,

    First a bit of background.

    I've been working on computers for the last 25 years.

    I've used everything from a Commodore PET, all the way up to "bleeding edge" hardware that came with NDA's like most people won't, but you might, believe.

    Except for the Commodore gear, I've built every. single. computer. I've ever owned.

    From DOS, to Windows 3x, to WFWG, 95, 98, NT, XP, & eventually, Vista.

    So when I say "I know how to configure a Windows system to run as fast as possible on the hardware it's given.", I mean just that.

    Now, given that, would you care to explain why I can't get VISTA not to suck up resources like a starving Hollywood Actress face-down in an All You Can Eat buffet line?

    GUI set to Classic with zero eye candy; nothing but the essential Services running; Antivirus & Firewall; all the drivers up-to-date.

    But it still runs like a dog with no legs.

    Yet, on the *exact same system*, literally just rebooting & choosing a different OS, XP screams like a banshee?

    Again, GUI set to Classic with no eye-candy; Services paired to the essentials; AV & Firewall; drivers up-to-date.

    Better yet, reboot & choose Ubuntu, & the thing feels nearly *sentient*.

    And that's WITH *ALL* the eye candy turned on; all the "services" it feels like running are; and all the drivers are up-to-date.

    If a system of the following specs: 2GHz 64bit processor, 2Gb DDR-PC5300 RAM, a 512 Meg ATI Radeon X600 PCIe video card, & 500Gb SATA HD: is capable of running every OTHER OS I throw at it like a champ, why is Vista unable to do much more than crawl?

    And if people like me can't get Vista to run well on mid-to-high level systems, what hope does the "Average Joe" have of getting an off the shelf system (from Dell, HP, WalMart, where-ever) that runs Vista worth a damn?

    "Vista Capable" systems aren't (there's a Class Action suit currently attempting to prove that); "Vista Ready" system rarely are; and anything that's capable of running Vista *WELL* is well-nigh out of the price range of the common user.

    If "Grandma Mary" can read her email, surf the web, watch YouTube videos of her grandchildren playing with kittens, type up her recipes for Pumpkin Bread, & play the occasional game of Bejeweled, all on a system that Vista considers "inadequate", then what reason does she have for buying a new system that Vista DOES approve of?

    There is no reason.

    Her "old" system does what she needs, & Vista offers nothing she wants.

    THAT is the situation of 90% of the consumers out there.

    What they have is fine for the job, works, & doesn't cost them anything to continue running (beyond the electricity & ISP charges).

    If they decide to buy a new computer, chances are it'll come with Vista pre-installed, and unless it's an "Uber Rig" (with a price to match), they're going to wonder why they just dropped a fat stack of cash on a system that feels SLOWER than what they supposedly upgrade from.

    You and I might be able to tweak the system to run faster, but they probably won't, and the first person they're going to blame is Microsoft.

    "Because my old computer with XP worked, it was just a bit slow. This brand spanking new machine with all the bells & whistles, currently runs Vista like a snail at a drag race."

    My grandmother is happy with a machine very similar to what I described above (it's got a 256Meg AGP card instead, & only a 100Gb HD, otherwise same Mobo/CPU/RAM), so, please, tell me why she would want to upgrade?

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Gates Halo

    "I know my shit"

    You're certainly full of it, but just in case anyone else is still reading, let's look at the message (and try to ignore the messenger).

    "Microsoft Windows is generally considered a security risk because it does not respect network security policies and is of questionable quality"

    Probably more accurate than Mike's original. Who (other than MS and MS-dependent folks) could possibly make a statement like Mike's original?

    "Linux ... totally unsuited for use as an end-user OS"

    Says who (other than MS and MS-dependent folks)? There are a lot of folks who would disagree, especially those not brought up exclusively on MS software. That being said, a larger number of folks have (to date) bet careers and businesses exclusively on MS's continued success. That may change, Vista is one of the things most likely to change it.

    "The OS of the future isn't built around a mainfram OS that originated in the 1960's that has a totally flawed and proven-wrong security model."

    Says who (other than MS and MS-dependent folks)? Exactly what is flawed and wrong with its security model, other than the fact it lacks any entertainment-industry-acceptable DRM infestations? Unix/Linux is in just as many business critical applications (maybe more) than Windows, who cares if it can't play HD DVD?

    "I thought support was supposed to come with the OS purchase price? Look at reality here."

    Yes let's look at reality. XP Home OEM £50 (support and docs via hardware vendor). XP Home retail £200 (support via MS). Similarly for XP Pro. So MS think the cost/price of supporting XP was £150 per PC (OK for the extra £150 you also get a cardboard box, but you don't get any docs). If MS had to do their own support for their own software, PCs would cost an extra £150? How do you think that would affect the market?

    You're having a larf.

  12. Alexis Vallance

    Isn't the problem it's just the same old Windows?

    Isn't the main problem, not that it might not run brilliantly on older hardware, but the fact it's just the same old Windows?

    There's nothing revolutionary about it. It's the same old Start bar, with the same old Windows, but with loads of crap in the way (pop ups, nagging boxes).

    Win 7 needs to bring some real navigational changes that enhances how you use the OS. It needs some new ideas. Genuine new ideas.

    And tone down the Aero crap. It looks nice enough, but there's too much eye candy and not enough design thought.

  13. Ammaross
    Thumb Down

    Vista = bloatware

    I'm just mad about the WinSxS folder that seems to grow exponentially... Time to format and reclaim 15GB of my hard drive.

  14. Paul
    Linux

    eroom's Law

    As the power of the processor rises exponentially, the memory and processing requirement of Windows also rises exponentially - effectively cancelling out progress. Well done MS.

    The penguin of all evil? Because I have realised why people love Linux so much. Tins and labels, tins and labels...

  15. Joe
    Happy

    Sorry Stef

    I didn't mean to call you Sven! I don't know where that came from...

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019