John Dvorak On Vista's Launch 382
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."
"there seems to be no excitement level at all" (Score:4, Interesting)
Zonk does it again! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Took a while for XP also (Score:4, Interesting)
This looks right - why bad mouth it? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's the applications, stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Stop linking Dvorak (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Translation (Score:4, Interesting)
Looks like MS will have to rely on their monopoly alone to sell Vista. Their marketing can't help them this time.
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.
There's not much for them to sell to the consumers either. "Look a new Start menu!" isn't getting much interest.
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.
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.
Re:Same with everything (Score:4, Interesting)
I disagree. Let's take the two latest and the upcoming release of OS X as an example:
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.
I for one... (Score:4, Interesting)
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!
Re:Dvorak... Reality... ??? (Score:1, Interesting)
Hey, even a stopped watch is right twice a day.
Visa = ME (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Upgrade-worthy features are aimed at end users (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
John is at it again? Well, so is Slashdot.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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*.
Re:Same with everything (Score:4, Interesting)
Vista in the SMB market. (Score:1, Interesting)
The product seems fine. I don't mind that. It's the overly sensitive 'security' features that bother me.
To connect to a wireless network I have to find it. I click either Manage Networks or Connect to Network. Both seem to do the same thing. After typing in the new WEP I am asked if this is a public, home or office connection. Home and Office seem to do the same thing. Their descriptions are the same.
Having been in the SMB market for the past 7 years I find that people are less knowledgeable. I won't say stupid because they run businesses that leave me wondering how they are profitable (all honest folk too. I just don't understand accounting).
I can only imagine that, if I stay in the market, we'll get 30x the calls re: Windows Security.
It SHOULD be seamless. It is not. This saddens me as Vista has proven pretty, updated and except for one NIC driver, stable. I don't know much about programming but UI is what makes or breaks most introductions. I like that I can hit WINDOW KEY, type in MSTSC and bam, control a computer. That's cool. What's NOT cool is being told I need administrative rights to COPY a file from an external HD to a folder. Why? Copy isn't destructive. It wasn't overwriting anything.
This, like the ZUNE, may be an initial nightmare. After the inital testing phase (public release), they'll release SP1 and 'fix' all the crap that people hate, doesn't work and is misunderstood. I hope so.
As I see it now, Vista isn't ready for Christmas. And that's a GOOD thing. Let's say someone buys a $2300 laptop with all the fancies. Sweet. They get Vista and hate it. They return it and buy a Mac. The home user will be much happier because the learning curve will be the same, but without the headaches.
Sorry for being an AC.
Education sector definately not considering it... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Dvorak... Reality... ??? (Score:5, Interesting)
When it's in that state, it's entirely in kernel mode, pulling things off the swap that it shouldn't have put there to begin with. It just drops back to the idle process while it waits for the hard drive to scratch the magnetic particles off the platter.
Honestly, I know of no other OS which WASTES so much time and tries so hard to overwork hardware than Windows' bad virtual memory manager.
Re:A slow Vista roll out is good for everyone (Score:2, Interesting)
I've been using Office 2007 final since its internal release day. Outlook performance seems faster than in Office 2003. I haven't noticed a performance difference with other Office apps, but file sizes are a lot smaller thanks to the new format. The new UI takes some getting used to. My jury is still out on whether or not I prefer it to the old UI. Overall, I'd say that unless you really, really need better Outlook performance or have a tried a beta of Office 2007 somewhere and absolutely love the UI and have to have it, there's probably no compelling need for most people to get Office 2007 either.
None of my home machines have Vista or Office 2007, and I have no plans to change that in the foreseeable future, even though I can get the stuff dirt cheap through the company store.
My advice to most people is that if your current XP + Office 2003 setup is stable and meeting your needs, don't rush out to upgrade. Undoing the upgrade would be really really painful if you find yourself regretting it later.
I don't want Vista but... (Score:2, Interesting)