Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Windows Operating Systems Software Microsoft

John Dvorak On Vista's Launch 382

Posted by Zonk
from the he-said-lunch-not-launch dept.
An anonymous reader writes "John is at it again, this time with his take on the launch of Microsoft's Vista operating system. John covers the reality from a market perspective, looking at whether the release will affect PC sales, peripherals ... or even Microsoft." From the article: "While there is no way that Vista will be a flop, since all new computers will come with Vista pre-installed, there seems to be no excitement level at all. And there does not seem to be any compelling reason for people to upgrade to Vista. In fact, the observers I chat with who follow corporate licensing do not see any large installations of Windows-based computers upgrading anytime soon. The word I keep hearing is 'stagnation.' Industry manufacturers are not too thrilled either. One CEO who supplies a critical component for all computers says he sees a normal fourth quarter then nothing special in the first quarter for the segment. Dullsville."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

John Dvorak On Vista's Launch

Comments Filter:
  • by Kelson (129150) * on Thursday November 30, 2006 @02:55PM (#17053068) Homepage Journal
    John covers the reality from...

    Is this the same Dvorak we've all come to know and love [slashdot.org]? Who thinks Microsoft should buy Opera [slashdot.org], that CSS doesn't work [slashdot.org] because he couldn't figure out what "cascading" meant, and admits to trolling Mac users [slashdot.org]?

    Oh, wait, he's making disparaging remarks about Microsoft! I'm sorry I ever doubted you, John!

  • by Mateo_LeFou (859634)
    Blatant Shill. Stop linking him. Stop completely. Please
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by WED Fan (911325)

      This from tolerant Slashdotters.

      I love how if an opinion goes against The Accepted Slashdotter Standard (A.S.S.), the cry goes out to mod down or refuse to publish.

      • by Mateo_LeFou (859634) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @03:18PM (#17053546) Homepage
        Wrong. Dvorak persistently gets fundamental, entry-level facts wrong about the matters he reports. There is also a video (I'm too lazy to link it) in which he confesses that his main purpose in writing is to piss people off and drive traffic.

        Paul Thurott is an example of someone with a favorable opinion of MS, whose opinion is generally respected here because it is usually well-researched
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by s20451 (410424)
          There is also a video (I'm too lazy to link it) in which he confesses that his main purpose in writing is to piss people off and drive traffic.

          If true, that makes him a polemist, not a shill.
  • by El Lobo (994537)
    Actually, to be honest, there is no **REAL** reason to upgrade to the new Linuz kernel either, or to get the new OS X Felis Domesticus for some houndred bucks whatever the bloat they decide to add, and so on. people will upgrade if

    * They just get a new computer

    * They just (like me) are willing to upgrade (I'll get Vista the day it gets out)

    * They will have the need to upgrade to run new specific stuff

    * Or just because.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Mateo_LeFou (859634)
      You're right, the reasons to upgrade your kernel are not always obvious (until e.g. a 2.6 major release version or something) and the benefits are not always tangible.

      But the good news is that upgrading the various Linuces is pretty much as easy as "yum upgrade" or the equivalent. So you don't have to fret and stress over whether it'll be worth it.

      When nobody knows how the internals really work, the process involves considerable risk.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by august sun (799030)
        But the good news is that upgrading the various Linuces is pretty much as easy as "yum upgrade" or the equivalent. So you don't have to fret and stress over whether it'll be worth it.

        *cough* [slashdot.org]

        • by AusIV (950840)
          You just linked to an article about upgrading from Dapper Drake to Edgy Eft. There's a difference between the kernel and the version of your distro. In fact, I believe Dapper and Edgy use the same version of the kernel (if you've let Adept automatically update your kernel). I didn't even notice when my kernel got upgraded.

          The line you quote makes it sound like you're talking about upgrading the distro, but the parent was talking about the kernel, which is quite simple to upgrade.

          • by drinkypoo (153816)
            I started writing basically the same comment you did but then stopped because although the context makes it clear what we're talking about, the comment to which you replied DID make it look more like we're talking about updating the whole OS. This is pretty normal - who upgrades just their kernel, anyway?
          • In fact, I believe Dapper and Edgy use the same version of the kernel

            You are mistaken.

            from the release notes [ubuntu.com]

            With the Ubuntu 6.10 release comes a whole host of excellent new features. Improvements have been made all around, such as faster system boot up times, faster GNOME start up times, improvements to the user interface, a shiny new optimized kernel, GNOME 2.16, and much, much more.

            And from the originally linked story it is clear not everyone had such a transparent and generally delightful time of the upgrade as you.

    • Actually, to be honest, there is no **REAL** reason to upgrade to the new Linuz kernel either

      I suppose if security isn't high on your requirements list, or new drivers, then what you say is true.
      Then again, you could go retro chic and just run Lotus123, WordStar, and Paradox on an old DOS 3.3 box.
      d00d! You'd be teh untouchable! (In the security, Costner [imdb.com], and Dalit [wikipedia.org] senses of the word.)

    • *An exploit is found, which requires a new kernel. MS needs a hook. The PS/2 had a DVD player in it. That was a hook. There is no hook for Vista, and it's difficult to comprehend the type of "killer app" which would use it over any other iteration of Windows.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by kfg (145172)
      Actually, to be honest, there is no **REAL** reason to upgrade. . .

      Yes, that's the point. You're not supposed to even be able think that to point it out. Microsoft sells sizzle, not steak. They need people to care, or the whole thing comes tumbling down.

      KFG
    • Each version of OS X has shipped with a number of things that were productivity boosters - Spotlight and Dashboard in Tiger, and with Leopard you are going to see things like Time Machine which brings version control to the masses!

      Similarily with Linux updates have included ever more useful windowing systems and application software - you could of course have added parts piecemeal but it's pretty handy to load a whole distro.

      The problem with Vista is that it doesn't even offer anything as compelling as a ne
    • by Fulkkari (603331) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @03:23PM (#17053646)

      I disagree. Let's take the two latest and the upcoming release of OS X as an example:

      • 10.3 Exposé, FileVault
      • 10.4 Spotlight, Dashboard
      • 10.5 Time Machine, Spaces

      Every new release have had tons of new features that have actually been useful. If Microsoft has troubles adding new useful features to their OS, that does not mean that others have the same problem. Don't judge other operating systems based how Microsoft is doing.

      • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Thursday November 30, 2006 @03:30PM (#17053794) Homepage Journal
        Assuming you started with 10.2 and not 10.1 that means over $300 worth of updates if you did them all. Were those features worth $300? Just askin'...
        • by rthille (8526)
          Given that that's years of use for my computer that I'm using on a daily basis to make money, I'd say so. But then my wife and I probably blow $300 on Sushi & Indian food in a month...
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by archen (447353)
          I went from 10.2 to 10.4. If you don't think the updates are worth it, then don't buy the updates. No one is forcing you. (that's a total of $120 BTW). My main reasons for upgrading were native caps->ctrl mapping, and expose - aside from that every apple update (aside from perhaps tiger which I'm unsure of) has made OSX faster on the same machines. I doubt I'm going to get that warm fuzzy feeling from Vista.

          I think upgrading to Leopard will be a waste of money BTW.
        • by Ucklak (755284)
          Where do you get $300?

          Each version is $120 and has been.

          If you're on 10.2 and decide to upgrade to 10.5, it's $120 for $360 of upgrades as you put it.

          I'm still on 10.3. Didn't really see the need to upgrade to 10.4 but I will upgrade to 10.5 in the form of a new machine.

    • Apple's business model doesn't depend on tricking people into superfluous upgrades, interfering with the market or taking technical measures - wait for your XP to DeActivate in favour of Vista! - to force people to upgrade. If you weren't paying attention for the past 25 years, Apple is a hardware company (like Sun) that just happens to bundle a kick-ass O/S.

      And Linux's business model... uh wait.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nine-times (778537)

      It may not be "necessary" (in the hunter-gatherer sense of the word) to ever upgrade software, but that doesn't mean there's no reason to do so. Sometimes new versions have really useful features. New versions of Linux software (it's not quite right to focus solely on the kernel) are often beneficial, and every new Apple cat-named release has offered increased speed and stability, while also including new features.

      Now, sure there are people who won't benefit from the upgrade. For example, if you're a Ma

  • PS (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mateo_LeFou (859634) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @03:01PM (#17053166) Homepage
    Firefox prevented this site from opening 3 popup windows.
  • by Jeff DeMaagd (2015) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @03:02PM (#17053188) Homepage Journal
    When you have an entire industry where pretty much only one company supplies a critical part, the entire industry is dependent on that one company. It would be nice to get away from the single-supplier issue, much like there are two major suppliers for processors, a half-dozen dozen chipset makers and so on.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      "It would be nice to get away from the single-supplier issue, much like there are two major suppliers for processors, a half-dozen dozen chipset makers and so on."

      As nice as that thought is, how would you go about forcing another OS vendor on the market to have an impact?

  • by creimer (824291) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @03:03PM (#17053200) Homepage
    Windows Vista Premium with a free high-end computer to run it on.
  • Last week Dvorak was an idiot, but today he's the best tech columnist in the world.
  • Though he's right (Score:5, Informative)

    by abradsn (542213) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @03:07PM (#17053296) Homepage
    I've seen and worked with vista already. Here were my impressions.

    It is really hard to lose your work. It is really easy to find your files.

    It is a lot prettier.

    The GUI for the system has been re-engineered and it is easier to use. Other applications have been rewritten to have the same look and feel so that the system as a whole will be easier to use.

    It was not stable when I used it.

    • by jimstapleton (999106) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @03:10PM (#17053356) Journal
      my question:

      How does this
      It is really hard to lose your work.
      fit with this
      It was not stable when I used it.
      without creating a universe-shattinger paradox?
      • by Kelson (129150) *
        How does this
        It is really hard to lose your work.
        fit with this
        It was not stable when I used it.

        Hmm, no experience with it personally, but here's a possibility:

        Unstable OS + good crash recovery = crashes, but doesn't lose your work?

    • by thepotoo (829391)

      It is a lot prettier.

      The GUI for the system has been re-engineered and it is easier to use. Other applications have been rewritten to have the same look and feel so that the system as a whole will be easier to use.

      It was not stable when I used it.

      That is, in effect, Microsoft strategy. They think that if everyone likes how their desktop looks, they won't mind that their box is a zombie spewing worms to all the other computers.

      That's the entire reason Microsoft's empire will probably collapse over the

      • "we're competing with windows 98 on looks"
        who's this *we?
        http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?re lease=645&slide=2 [osdir.com]
      • by pilkul (667659) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @03:40PM (#17053992)

        Sorry to break it to you, but Windows's security model is now superior to Linux's. Like in Unix, you can now run as a regular user and only raise to admin permissions when required. The permission system has finer granularity and can more easily be controlled from a central server. Internet Explorer 7 runs inside a sandbox, unlike Linux web browsers. And not only do you have more power, it can be managed more easily by nonexperts using GUIs instead of text files. Realistically, Vista will still be much more worm-infested than Linux but this will be mainly attributable to market share.

        As for stability, there's no reason to expect Vista will be less stable than XP upon release (i.e. at least weeks of uptime).

        That Linux is better than Windows "under the hood" was only true in the 9x/ME days. To be sure, there are differences of approach -- Windows is monolithic, Linux distributions are made of loosely connected components; Windows is GUI-based with CLI tacked on, Linux is CLI-based with GUI tacked on; Windows maintains binary backwards compatibility, Linux forces recompilation. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, and it's hard to see that one is clearly better than the other.

        • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Thursday November 30, 2006 @04:11PM (#17054650) Homepage Journal
          Sorry to break it to you, but Windows's security model is now superior to Linux's.

          Windows' permissions system has always been superior to that of Unix. Sure, there's POSIX ACLs, but no one uses them and user tools to manage them are just not there as they are on Windows. The masking system used on Unix is just stupid. The fact that a file can only be associated with one group or user is pathetic. The fact that a file must be owned by a user and cannot simply be owned by a group is ridiculous. And finally, while NT has both permit and deny permissions, Unix has only permit. I cannot for example grant full control to all developers except those who are also QA engineers, who are denied write access.

          However, it is entirely possible to run any application you like inside of a sandbox on Unix systems, so that's nothing special. And while it is easier to perform superficial management tasks on windows, when you run into something the GUI doesn't cover it becomes much harder than Unix, while on Unix I can use ssh to push and execute scripts to handle border cases securely and conveniently. This functionality is present on NT but not as easy to use or as reliable.

          That Linux is better than Windows "under the hood" was only true in the 9x/ME days.

          Unless you've done a line by line source code comparison of the two operating systems, you are not qualified to make this statement. Certainly Linux still behaves as if it were more robust underneath than NT; try putting both systems under heavy load, using up all their memory, etc etc and see what happens, see which one is more usable, see which one you can recover and which one you end up applying the BRS to.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by pilkul (667659)

            Unless you've done a line by line source code comparison of the two operating systems, you are not qualified to make this statement.

            Well, under that criteria exactly 0 people are qualified to make a comparison. Nobody one person masters the details of either operating system individually, let alone both at the same time. As you say, we can only surmise based on experience, and my experience is telling me that there's no strong winner either way.

            Certainly Linux still behaves as if it were more robust

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Vancorps (746090)

        Although I agree, under the hood Linux is much more trustworthy as their is no mystery involved.

        People in general do like the interface that Microsoft provides and after working with Office 2007 on my XP box I'm quite pleased with the shift, everything is up front and easy to find. The only problems I tend to have are not recognizing the plain English words that cover the functions I wish to perform. I'm so trained in having to hunt for the Microsoft query tool that I don't notice it's right in front of m

    • by 0racle (667029)
      Heres mine: It pissed me off. That is the second most irritating OS I have used, this morning it refused to open the control panel and WIndows Defender popped up to tell me nothing every few minutes. Though to be honest, I haven't used it all that much.

      Just for the record, the most irritating is currently SCO OpenServer.
  • "people aren't interested in vista"

    In the words of Carlos Mencia...

    THAT'S NOT NEWS!

  • by sottitron (923868) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @03:08PM (#17053316)
    I think Microsoft made a big mistake by releasing Vista to businesses first. I think consumers are somewhat excited about Vista or will be when the majority of them actually see Aero in action. In general, businesses don't need Vista or care about the new thing because however you want to package it, its going to cost them more money. The only thing accurate about this article is that Vista will not be a flop because it won't be long before you can only buy a new computer with Vista on it. As that happens, and as more computers get into the hands of consumers, business will have to catch up.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TubeSteak (669689)
      I think Microsoft made a big mistake by releasing Vista to businesses first.
      Is it still a mistake if you consider the corporate customers as beta testers?

      I'd hope that this corporate pre-release makes for a much smoother public release of Vista.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 30, 2006 @03:28PM (#17053744)
      > Vista will not be a flop because it won't be long before ...

      Vista can be the Edsel of computers.

      The Edsel was the best Big American Car. It had all the features and acessories that were available, including some that were novel. It was overhyped and was delivered late.

      The problem was not so much the car itself, or the marketing, but that the public decided it did not want a Big American Car, but wanted a compact or a foreign import, or more to the point, two small cars instead of one big one.

      Vista is trying to be everything - a computer, a media centre, a games machine, internet access, telephone, all in one with every feature.

      But only one person can use it at a time. Just like a Big American Car it lacks flexibility because it can only have one driver. For the same price as one 'all doing' Vista machine with Office and all the bells and whistles, you should be able to buy 2 or more 'foreign imports' (linux) or 'compacts' (like a miniMac) and/or recycle existing machines and link them together so that the family can all access everything they want without queuing for it.

      Some years ago Bill Gates noted a survey that found that in most homes the TV and the computer were in the same room. He concluded that this meant that people wanted these to be integrated as one unit. No. Bill, it is because most families don't have 22 room mansions and because _some_ want to watch the one TV while others use the one computer, they don't all have a TV and a computer each.

  • Zonk does it again! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by smooth wombat (796938) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @03:08PM (#17053320) Homepage Journal
    Is it really that difficult for you to give credit where credit is due, Zonk? Not only did you take the exact same title as my journal entry [slashdot.org], you put the submission down to an anonymous reader. Throw in that you kept the exact same first line I used and your bias shows through.


    Seriously Zonk, if you're never going to accept stories from me while you're on duty, at least have the guts to email me and tell me. It will save us both time and effort. This nonsense is just childish.

    • by Adam9 (93947) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @04:59PM (#17055684) Journal
      I've seen some other people mention the same thing. Is it possible that an AC did the copy/paste of your journal entry rather than zonk?
    • by Red Flayer (890720) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:03PM (#17055752) Journal
      Is it really that difficult for you to give credit where credit is due, Zonk? Not only did you take the exact same title as my journal entry, you put the submission down to an anonymous reader. Throw in that you kept the exact same first line I used and your bias shows through.
      You do know, of course, that it's possible to submit other people's journal entries as stories, right? That any user could have ripped off your journal entry?

      Assign blame where blame is due... and until you know for sure that no one else could have possibly ripped off your entry, don't blame Zonk. I suggest looking at your fans list as the prime list of suspects, since they are the people most likely to read your journal.

      Or do you think that Zonk spends his day combing through journal entries looking for entries he can rip off without attribution as stories?

      Grow up.
  • Effectively... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by drsmithy (35869) <drsmithy.gmail@com> on Thursday November 30, 2006 @03:11PM (#17053378)

    The lack of "buzz" around Vista and apathy towards upgrading - despite its myriad improvements - are a tacit acknowledgement of just how good Windows 2000 and XP were(/are)...

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      Moving from Windows 98 to Windows XP (for the home user, this was the upgrade path if you ignore Windows ME, which most people did thank god) was a MAJOR upgrade. It's not just that Windows 9x was crap, although it was, it's that XP provided not just more reliability, but also more functionality. Vista provides the same features as XP, only improved. Well, most people find that XP is good enough for their purposes, so why should they care?

      I credit Linux and OSX with keeping Microsoft running scared. The

  • by also-rr (980579) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @03:12PM (#17053402) Homepage
    All the pointy hair types I meet seem to know all about it. Was there a massive golf and martini day I wasn't told about somewhere in the UK? Has there been one day recently when *all* of your senior management - and everyone else's - went missing?

    I'd call it brainwashing but that isn't very plausible considering the target audience ;)
  • by revlayle (964221) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @03:12PM (#17053410) Homepage
    A lot of corporate entities didn't upgrade to XP from 200 for a few years either. Some places STILL run a significant number of 2000 workstations and some servers.
    • Processing power is expensive in a datacenter and windows 2000 IMHO was the last version that did a decent job of not sucking all of it up. Vista just sounds like another processor/ram hog like 2003.

      I'd be impressed if they ever came out with another OS the speed of windows 95 to tell you the truth.

    • by Methuseus (468642)
      I worked at a company after Windows XP came out that was just starting to look at the possibility of upgrading from NT4.0 to 2000. They literally had just installed their first 2000 test workstation about 6 months after XP was released.
    • by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Thursday November 30, 2006 @04:06PM (#17054496) Homepage

      Of course people are still running Windows 2000. What features does XP have that make the work of your IT staff any easier? What programs do you really need to run for business purposes that run on Windows XP and not Windows 2000? In what way does Windows XP offer a significant improvement to productivity? How will the purchase of Windows XP licenses result in saving your company money? If you can't answer these questions definitively, then there's probably no reason to upgrade.

      Good IT people are practical, and won't want to upgrade to the newest thing just because it's new. Along with everything else, new software usually brings new problems, which require new bug-fixes and work-arounds. Windows 2000 and Office 2000 make a great combo, and don't require inconvenient activation schemes. Sometimes it's better to stick with the devil you know.

  • by leegaard (939485) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @03:14PM (#17053436) Homepage
    Ok They are not hyping the launch They are not trying to stuff it down your throat They are making an OS that takes advantage of next gen hardware to improve performance further Why is all this a bad thing that deserves to be berated like Dvorak does?? I am writing this on Vista, and as far as I have seen and read - this seems like a pretty solid release (where things are done right albeit the microsoft way) with lots and lots of potential.
  • by Mark Programmer (228585) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @03:15PM (#17053456) Homepage
    At the end of the day, the operating system's purpose is really to give me access to my programs. On Windows, that means a lot, but I'm fairly happy with the way XP does it. The people who should care about major OS changes ought to be the developers; a new OS changes the rules of the game they play. In general, I don't want to shell out $200 for another OS, as long as the one I have is doing its job.

    I've talked to a couple of my friends, and they are not very impressed by what they see in Vista in terms of new tools for the developers. Major changes, yes, but few of them practically interesting, in the sense that they either serve such a small subset of programs that they won't be used by the average developer or there already exists a perfectly reasonable way to do the job in Windows XP. Just as I don't want to buy a new interface if my current one is acceptable, they don't want to have to re-invent wheels just because all the 'fooX' functions are now 'barX' functions.

    GNU/Linux is a little different; since the operating system is available cost-free, there's no disincentive to immediately adopting upgrades (except for instability, which is probably the biggest issue with new developments and is also shared by the must-be-purchased OS's). But with Windows, they need to really convince me that there's some truly profound new way of talking to my applications that I just gotta try.

    I feel like we've reached a design plateau with both Windows XP and MacOSX these days. They both do what they do extremely well, and most of the other needs can be satisfied by the applications themselves without changing the OS. Until I'm given a very good reason to pay money to learn a new way of talking to my programs, I'll hold off, thanks.
    • by King_TJ (85913)
      I'd agree with you to a point, but I think OS X *does* have a lot more room to advance, unlike Windows XP/Vista, and largely for the exact reason you're stating.

      Mac OS X has added various "core" support extensions with each revision, (core audio, core video, core animation), which really means little to nothing to end-users, but caters squarely to developers. And features they added in 10.4 like Spotlight search functionality can be extended by applications too.

      Right now, OS X needs to concentrate on OS re
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I feel like we've reached a design plateau with both Windows XP and MacOSX these days. They both do what they do extremely well, and most of the other needs can be satisfied by the applications themselves without changing the OS.

      I strongly disagree. The progress in the OS field has been slow, but there is plenty of room for growth. OS X has numerous features that are part of and should be part of the OS that have not yet made their way to Windows. For example, system level services. Can you believe ther

  • by GoatMonkey2112 (875417) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @03:15PM (#17053462)
    Since Windows XP doesn't suck as much as the previous versions of Windows that users were dying to get rid of there will not be that much excitement about it.
  • Help me out please; I've only been in the software industry 14 years. Who is John Dvorak and why should anyone care what he says?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by drinkypoo (153816)
      He's an asshat who used to make up wild predictions for Byte magazine in order to help sell copies. Now he makes up wild predictions for lots of people in order to help get ad impressions. I really like the title of this column, though: "JOHN DVORAK'S SECOND OPINION" I wonder what his first opinion was?
  • Crysis. Have you seen the eyecandy in that game?

    (Crysis is based on directx 10, and last I heard there wasn't going to be any upgrades to XP - granted if I can get directx 10 Ill stay with XP)
  • Dvorak's take on public interest in the Vista release seems about right, but I don't understand why he thinks this is a problem. Does he look forward to OS releases because he enjoys the buzz, talk, and excitement? He seems to be of the opinion that every major OS launch needs the marketing and fanfare of Windows 95.

    There have been some major Windows revolutions - new versions that significantly added value since previous versions. Windows 95 was one. Windows 2000 was another, although the excitement of t

  • Translation (Score:4, Interesting)

    by UnknowingFool (672806) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @03:22PM (#17053622)
    While there is no way that Vista will be a flop, since all new computers will come with Vista pre-installed, there seems to be no excitement level at all. And there does not seem to be any compelling reason for people to upgrade to Vista.

    Looks like MS will have to rely on their monopoly alone to sell Vista. Their marketing can't help them this time.

    In fact, the observers I chat with who follow corporate licensing do not see any large installations of Windows-based computers upgrading anytime soon. The word I keep hearing is "stagnation."

    Corporations don't see any benefit to upgrade either. They've been burned by SA and security issues. They've gotten their Windows environments stable and they are not going to mess with them.

    Industry manufacturers are not too thrilled either. One CEO who supplies a critical component for all computers says he sees a normal fourth quarter then nothing special in the first quarter for the segment. Dullsville.

    There's not much for them to sell to the consumers either. "Look a new Start menu!" isn't getting much interest.

    This is further complicated by a confusing array of Vista offerings. There is Vista Home Basic, Vista Starter, Home Premium, Business, Enterprise, and Ultimate.

    Simplicity sells better to the average joe. That's why the iPod has the click-wheel. That's why auto makers have only one model in each category.

    One of the interesting things I'm seeing is the relative ignorance of the computer-using public in general about the system requirements for Vista.

    The public doesn't know (and MS probably does want them to know) that to really see the benefits of Vista, they can't use the basic $500 computer. They need the $2000+ model.

  • I for one... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ObiWanStevobi (1030352) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @03:24PM (#17053658) Journal

    know our company will not be upgrading soon.

    First of all, we wait for at least a year of patching before trusting a MS product. Second, Vista is a huge resource hog. We see no reason to waste that much RAM, CPU cycles for prettier windows that don't do more. Third, price. The costs to upgrade company wide a effing astronomical. For what, a bug-filled (I'll call it a safe assumption) resource hog?

    This is also coming from someone who is generally likes Windows XP. XP has become a pretty stable OS that is familiar and works well. So far Vista has offered nothing that makes us want to even know more about it. Heck, you could figure out how to display the desktop in 5D or shut it down 42 different ways for all I care, I want my RAM back!

  • ...nothing to see here. Please move along.
  • Visa = ME (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DeadboltX (751907) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @03:28PM (#17053752)
    Vista, to the average consumer, is just a visual upgrade from XP and with large performance hits to boot.

    This is just like Windows ME was comparatively to Windows 98; a few extra features with nothing noteworthy, and performance hits.

    If history repeats itself then a new server edition of windows will come out in about 2 years and then 2 years following that we will have another version of Windows whose features and stability will be welcome by all (except the obligatory anti-windows folk)
  • by Niten (201835) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @03:29PM (#17053766)

    Most of the new features in Windows Vista that (I would argue) make it worth upgrading to, are not aimed at enterprise users, but at the average home PC user. Although most of the really interesting new stuff in the user interface was ripped straight out of OS X 10.4, these changes alone do mark a major improvement over XP. Quartz's ability to offload to the GPU much of the processing needed for window management was a major factor in my switch to the Mac a few years ago, and it's nice that Windows users will finally have something similar (albeit apparently more resource-hungry) on their machines.

    While the new security features of Vista (especially the 64-bit version) are a good thing all-around, they're more of a factor for home users of the operating system than they are for large companies with corresponding IT departments to carefully secure and administer their computers. Microsoft's built-in malware scanner and improved firewall are a big step forward for Mr. PC Owner, but any decent enterprise deployment of Windows should already be behind a firewall and an anti-virus system. And in fact, insofar as most corporate Vista deployments will require a licensing server to keep Microsoft placated (bringing with it the looming possibility of a WGA malfunction), Vista is in some ways a step backward for enterprise users.

    I think the general public reception of Vista will be positive - partially due to the "Oh, it's so shiny!" factor, and partially due to some real improvements under the hood - but I agree that enterprise adoption of the operating system will probably start slow.

  • by King_TJ (85913) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @03:30PM (#17053776) Journal
    But considering they've yet again linked to useless Dvorak drivel, I guess I'll comment on the topic.

    John is treading in pretty "safe" territory with these comments. Vista really isn't exciting very many people. But at this point in the game, does it make any difference? Microsoft could release practically anything as a new OS update, and within 2-3 years, the majority of computer users will be running it - even if absolutely *none* of them voluntarily purchased it as an upgrade. As long as it comes preloaded on the vast majority of new computers purchased (and it does), they're keeping users on their migration path.

    I just got out of a technical meeting at my workplace this morning, and one of our discussions topics was the I.T. budget for 2007. It was universally agreed (with very little debate) that there's nothing compelling about spending money to upgrade our computer hardware (all Pentium 4 class systems with between 512MB and 1GB of RAM). We also agreed that it would be wasteful to spend money upgrading to Vista in 2007, since we're currently on XP Pro and it does everything we need. In the case of Office 2007, the only reason we'd upgrade to it is in response to receiving too many documents from our customers that were created in Office '07. Until that happens, it's a total waste of money for us to move to it.

    I can't see how many businesses out there would conclude otherwise? With the migration from Windows 2000 to XP, there were a few "drivers" that compelled people. One big one was better, more user-friendly wireless networking support. That, alone, made my laptop upgrade from 2000 to XP a big improvement. (You still can't even use WPA type wireless encryption in Win2K without 3rd. party software add-ons.)

    But with Vista, you've got new toolbars and eye-candy (some of which costs extra in terms of higher-end gaphics hardware to make use of it), and apparently a more complicated and restrictive EULA to boot. The things that would have cost-justified the product, at least in the eyes of corporate customers, were largely canned (such as the initially promised "revolutionary new file system"), and instead, we get things like more restrictive DRM for digital music. This makes it an upgrade you're forced to accept, rather than one you *want*.
  • Why is it that manufacturing can move heaven and earth to avoid vendor lock in yet process/plant/assets is quite happy to be lead around by the nards year in year out.

    I have heard of manufacturing
    1) requireing a single source vendor to license IP to a second company. Then purchases were made from both suppliers.
    2) going with a less desirable but second sourcable alternative

  • by Omicron32 (646469) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @03:38PM (#17053950)
    I work in a school, and as such we have an MS Schools License Agreement, which entitles us to all the latest Microsoft software for a reletively cheap price (I think £30ish a workstation).

    We're expecting delivery of our Office 2007 and Vista discs in either the December or January licensing packs. While we may test them around the office, a network-wide deployment (about 350 machines total) of Vista won't even be considered till after SP1 is released. Not to mention all the poorly-written educational software that will need compatability testing on the new OS. Due to the training requirements of Office 2007 I probably can't see that being rolled out till 2008 at the earliest either - especially with the admin staff, since a lot of their applications tie directly into Office and they use it all day, ever day. The training requirements for that alone would cause so many headaches for us to support.

    Many people I know who work at other schools in our area aren't even considering an upgrade yet or in the near future. XP works just fine for now and the forseeable future. My school is lucky in that we have a large IT budget and have mostly up-to-date PCs (enough for what they do on them anyway), other schools in my area are still running 333MHz/128MB RAM machines - not exactly the powerhouse needed to run Vista at a reasonable level.
  • Jeepers - that website for Vista really is awful. Yuk! And it looks like yet another triumph for Microsoft's chronic case of cranio-rectal inversion.

    However, I guess we'll all just have to "get used to it". It's like getting Herpes. It's ugly, uncomfortable, and won't go away. I hope it comes with a "classic" option so I can tone down the "we hired our OS designers from AOL" style and get it back to a standard, innocuous, and useful Win95-esque style.

    RS

  • I think where MS went wrong was with their minimum requirements. Previously, users may have had to upgrade a component here or there to get most of new version. i.e. A Win98 user wanting XP might need more RAM. Vista requires major upgrades to appreciate the new version. A WinXP user might need more RAM, a new video card, and maybe a new HD (preferably SATA), etc. Otherwise, they might as well stick with XP. Where users don't upgrade and buy new computers, they don't the full benefits of Vista until
  • Just EOL sales and support for Windows XP once the last OEM copy ships.

    IIRC Windows 98 support was supposed to end in a few months from some announcement. A while later they re-announced the date for oh, "next Thursday".

    I have to imagine that once they figured out that killing support for all previous versions would rip the last barnacle of Win98 from the hull of the SS Microsoft, someone in marketing did his best Daffy Duck imitation yelling "Shoot'em now! Shoot'em now!!!"
  • So the new Vista looks flashy. But why would anyone buy it?

    From Microsoft's website:

    The Start menu features integrated desktop search through a new feature called Instant Search which can help you find and launch almost anything on your PC

    Um, excuse me, but KDE has had this feature for the last, I don't know, maybe, FIVE YEARS! Alt-F2 strikes again.

    I recently moved from a Linux based organization to a Windows based one. Two things have struck me:

    1. The development pace is about an order of ma
  • by man_ls (248470) on Thursday November 30, 2006 @05:12PM (#17055946)
    I'm a long-time Windows fan (cue flames) but it's the honest truth. I get older and busier and have long-since dropped computers as a hobby, and use them exclusively to "get the job done" which means watching TV on my media center, burning CDs for use in my car, Word documents, and Internet browsing. I've never needed anything more than that.

    I don't plan to upgrade to Windows Vista for a year or so, most likely...if ever. I'm gradually letting my "hobbiest" knowledge lapse since I am getting out of tech as a job in the near future, but remain computer literate. And my plan is: when I get a new PC, I'm going to (gasp) load a Linux distribution onto it.

    People have convinced me that Linux is, at this point, reasonable enough to configure to work on common hardware without a lot of fuss. I'll dual-boot Windows XP, or use Wine, or something -- but Vista's DRM scares me just a little bit, and I am a historic *supporter* of DRM (cue flames again) for a variety of reasons.

    I imagine that Vista may prompt Linux desktop adoption to a bit of a degree, as corporations and "power-users" (somewhere between Joe User and Joe Admin) decide "hey, I've heard this Linux thing works and is free" and go for it.

    That's my plan, anyway.

Debug is human, de-fix divine.

Working...