Ballmer Calls Vista 'A Work In Progress' 345
shanen tips us to a Seattle Post-Intelligencer story about comments from Steve Ballmer at a conference earlier this week during which he referred to Vista as "a work in progress." He also admitted that the 5-year release cycle wasn't a good idea. Despite the approaching deadline for the end of XP sales, Ballmer's remarks about the older operating system were more ambiguous: "Vista is bigger than XP. It's going to stay bigger than XP. We have to make sure it doesn't get bigger still, and that the performance and that the battery life and that the compatibility, we're driving on the things that we need to drive hard to improve. I know we're going to continue to get feedback from people on how long XP should be available. We've got some opinions on that, we've expressed our views. ... I'm always interested in hearing from you on these and other issues."
That's great Steve. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So... (Score:3, Interesting)
As usual - and nothing surprising. The worst thing is that we are more or less forced into Vista unless we go to Linux, FreeBSD or AROS.
Translation, please? (Score:4, Interesting)
640k or ram is all anyone will ever need... (Score:5, Interesting)
Granted applications have become more integrated thru the operating system improvements but as technology and its use changes from the mainframe to the cell phone, the cycle of programming should be moving from the packrat (use all the memory and resources you can in your application) back to compactness of providing the right functionality only.
Where does this put Ballmers statement?
He is in essence saying MS will remain stupidly behind the times while claiming to be the forefront.
As the user base becomes more and more adapted to computing in a second nature manner, the more and more the user base will perceive the obvious babel of MS and as such move to alternatives for which third party commercial development will not be able to ignore and stay in business.
And we all know from experience that this is not going to happen over night but more at the rate of evolution via human generations, where each generation will put up with the babel less and less.
I don't see what the big deal is. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:The most expensive... (Score:5, Interesting)
At the end of the day, other than a few neat things in the UI, I still don't see the point of it. It offers little or nothing that's all that compelling. It's not like it really runs any of my software any better, and simple things like trying to install Apache and MySQL turn into major headaches.
Re:that was my reaction (Score:5, Interesting)
That's exactly what happened with Vista. It simply wasn't ready, and worse, it appears that the backroom way which Microsoft works with major hardware companies even knocked it back a few notches. It's not surprising to me, as I had heard some rumblings long before the revelations a few months ago. The marketers wanted an operating system ASAP, the teams didn't think it was ready, but the marketers won, and now Microsoft's credibility has fallen through the floor. Even worse, for most people, there's no point to the upgrade. As awful as it sounds to the marketers in Redmond, and maybe even to a lot of FOSS fanatics, Windows XP is a stable, mature product that works properly on today's hardware.
But Microsoft doesn't survive on stable, mature products. It survives on its unholy hardware alliances and marketing department, which push for unrealistic (and pointless) upgrade cycles. The problem here is that Vista is a resource hog. They say 1gb of RAM should be enough, but I can tell you that Aero runs, but does not run all that well, on 1gb of RAM. Only now are we seeing what I would consider legitimately sufficient hardware being released that runs the Vista "experience".
But it doesn't end there. Rather than admitting that Vista was a disaster, Microsoft still appears determined to kill XP, despite the fact that most business and many consumers don't want Vista. The only reason the operating system can even be considered a success is because of Microsoft's long-standing darling, the OEMs.
Here's a tip to Microsoft. Keep XP on the shelves. You're stuck with supporting Vista, but maybe Windows 7 will be an improvement, but only if a) you refuse to take hardware vendor's calls when they demand support for their low-end shit and b) fire 9/10s of marketing department, they're the incompetent evil morons that have created this disaster, and they should be shown the door. As well, as a sort of sub-point to that, the developments should always win automatically against marketing demands. Vista may have been released six months late, but you wouldn't have the black eye you have now.
Re:Vista changed a lot (Score:4, Interesting)
Can't have it both ways. You have to admit fault at some point in the process. You can't blame the future on the past AND the past on the future, at the same time.
I see so many examples of this today where people made a mess in the past, and the fact that the fix is going to be unpleasant is not their fault because it's now an entrenched problem, like this was not their doing to begin with. They usually rationalize by saying "well we made a mess but we cleaned it up so it's nobody's fault". Wrong. You've wronged us twice, once by creating the problem and refusing to fix it for so long, and then a second time when you finally fixed it through an unpleasant means "because there were no other options left". (yet it was ye who got us to the "no other options" predicament)
Fixing your own mess is an apology, not a pardon. If you deliberately direct the problem into a corner from which there is no pleasant escape, you cannot claim innocence in the hardship it produces getting free of the problem, claiming helplessness that now "there's no other choice". There was choice, you had choice, you made the decisions that brought us here, you are responsible for the results, inevitable though they may be.
You should not be considered a savior as you try to dig the world out of the mess you created.
Re:XP SP2! (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not about bugs or security, it's much worse: Vista is the first operating system designed to be inoperative on request. This is why even people who love Windows should avoid it at any cost.
Re:that was my reaction (Score:5, Interesting)
Worried about the illegal acts your company has been engaged in being leaked to the public? Trusted computing can make it impossible.
Hospital behind on their software payments after those budget cutbacks and the legal system won't help you enforce? Shut them off at the push of a button.
Someone at a news agency release information that compromises the governments position? Revoke the signature key, now it will not play even if someone does try to redistribute. Censorship after the fact.
They put the hardware on everyones desktops quite some time ago, just needs the right software support. That is what Vista is. It'll also be embedded in every set-top box after transitioning everyone away from analog television.
Now, imagine you were a powerful government or among the richest companies on earth, and someone approached you and offered to bring this scheme to reality. How much would that be worth to you? Billions? A place in the regime? All of the above?
Connect the dots.
The general population will not believe this is happening until the pieces are all in place. They can't. It's too big, and it means discarding everything you thought you knew about the way the world works. But it's still happening nevertheless.
The end user? Show them something flashy and keep dropping the price. Get it out there into the market at all costs. Do it while you've still got the influence to pull it off.
Re:That's great Steve. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:that was my reaction (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:And if they said this about linux? (Score:5, Interesting)
is linux not a work in progress?
Yes and no.
YES:
The Linux souce code/kernel is release on release improving, so it could be called a work in progress if you look at the bigger picture - You might draw a comparison by calling "Windows" a work in progress as in progress from 98 to 98se to ME to XP to Vista. Every Windows release has (supposedly - I am not an expert on that subject) a new kernel, architecture updates. Similarly the progress can be shown by comparing the progress from Edgy to Feisty to Gustry to Hardy.
NO:
Every release of the Kernel, and every full public release of a distribution is supposed to be a finished product (excluding testing, alpha and beta releases.) Hence Feisty was a finished product, and Gutsy was a finished product and Hardy upon release should be a finished product. Similarly Win98/98se should have been finished products, Me -> XP -> Vista should have been too.
GREY AREA:
Now, as to your comment quoted below;
isn't ALL software these days not a work in progress?
There is a gray area in the use of the term "work in progress" that lends some weight to your statement. It is difficult to determine how it is used in each scenario - by Mr Balmer and by you - language by nature can be very fluid, it is actually a beautiful thing but I digress...
Defining the term "work in progress" might go as follows:
To say a Linux release is a work in progress could be defined as I used above - but a detractor might say that the constant refining and bug fixes that takes place after release in the OS, and in any OS (a good example are Microsoft service packs), could point to a "work in progress" scenario. Did Steve Balmer use it this way? If he did, then he is essentially saying the following: Linux is essentially just as good and "desktop ready" as Windows Vista is.
However, the detractors of Linux desktop operating systems are continually saying "Linux is not desktop ready" hence it is still an unfinished work, and thus can be said to be a work in progress. Because this statement is used in a comparative sense with Windows operating systems it infers "Windows is desktop ready" and thus should be a finished work upon release. If it were the case that the term was used thusly it would be a bad thing for Mr Balmer to say that about his own product.
software design can respond to user experience and feedback, and move with the times.
Yes. That is quite correct - that is how it should be. However I contend that the five-year release cycle of Windows hinders this a bit. The service packs might smooth this over a bit, but as I see it response to user complaints - with the possible exception of security alerts - is almost non existent. Bear in mind that as a Linux user my view may be skewed - a lot. Would you think that if enough customers/Vista users complained that DRM is not wanted in Vista that Microsoft would issue a patch to completely remove it? I would think no. In fact when DRM is disabled by a third party "hack" Microsoft is quick to release a patch that disables said "hack", pointing out to me that the wishes of the customer does not come first.
Is Vista a work in progress? Okay - then define exactly where the "progress" is needed.
Was it desktop ready when released?
Was it user ready when released?
Was Microsoft satisfied that it was ready for release when it was released?
I contend that it was not completely desktop ready when released - this might in part be due to the slow reaction of third-party vendors to release drivers so let's set that aside.
I contend that it was not user ready when it was released - partly this is because users needed to "learn the software" before being able to use it properly. This is in part due to newer features, not a bad thing, and (arguably) questionable interface design decisions - lets strike that one because it is really a question open to debate in the end.
Did Microsoft think it was re
Re:that was my reaction (Score:5, Interesting)
Quite frankly I've never seen the point. C is a powerful tool that has proven its worth for decades now. There's a lesson in all of this, never buy into your own PR.
Re:Leadership... (Score:3, Interesting)
But this month, Microsoft had a rollout even for Visual Studio 2008, and for the first time I can remember, it sold out and I couldn't get in. Now I probably could have contacted some friends at the local Microsoft office if i had really wanted to go, but I still found this rather surprising.
I've been going to rollouts since Windows NT 3.5.
Re:Software "architects?" Ha! (Score:3, Interesting)
"The current embassy, which opened July 1, 2004 in the "Green Zone", is being replaced with what has been described as the largest and most expensive embassy in the world. The new embassy has been mired in construction delays, but is expected to be completed in 2008."
Re:Basic analysis (Score:3, Interesting)
Winfs (Score:5, Interesting)
Your last paragraph is the critical one. A 5 year timescale is impossible to manage without having milestones. With a 5 year window, people only start feeling the need to integrate and consolidate after 4 years. No wonder Winfs is always killed: too much effort for not enough feature.
Sigh..... (Score:2, Interesting)
Ballmer and Gates need to realize that Vista just plain sucks. The big brouhaha surrounding it should be a big enough clue.
If Microsoft just stopped and listened to what customers were actually saying about Vista, and what they really want (instead of Gates and Ballmer deciding what customers want), and delivered something that was what CUSTOMERS ACTUALLY WANTED, they have the money and resources to create something that could be TRULY AWESOME.
Microsoft has blatantly ignored the fact that customers:
1) DO NOT want bloat.
2) DO NOT want eye candy.
3) DO NOT want product tie-ins.
4) DO NOT want compatibility problems.
5) DO NOT want compatibility problems to be routinely blamed on something other than Vista.
6) DO NOT want security problems.
7) DO NOT want spyware.
8) DO NOT care about flashy lights and fancy bells and whistles.
9) DO NOT want an OS with a mind of its own.
10) DO want a fully-functional OS.
11) DO want a GOOD BROWSER (IE sucks. Believe it.)
12) DO want to use product other than Microsoft's.
13) DO want an OS without so many goddamn problems as Vista.
14) DO want Microsoft to own up to its shortcomings and FIX THEM.
15) DO want a secure browser.
16) DO want a secure OS.
Of course, Ballmer and Gates continue to think they they "know what's best" for the customer, and that we have no clue what we want.
Vista is a work in progress just like a bowel movement is a work in progress.
Re:that was my reaction (Score:5, Interesting)
No. Neither is it a good idea to mention that Linux and Google won't kill off the version everyone prefers to the newest bleeding-edge train wreck just to force upgrades. It's kind of wrapped up in that whole "not charging" thing.
Microsoft's biggest liability in the past decade has been that they are forced to focus primarily on maintaining their monopoly since they are unwilling, in any way, to compete fairly... probably because they will usually lose. Since maintaining an unfair advantage is completely independent of producing good or desirable product, and Microsoft's worst possible scenario is satisfied customers who don't need to, or want to, upgrade, plus the fact that their _real_ customers are media companies and governments who want unprecedented control of the average user's computers, I don't see any way Vista _could_ have turned out good.
The problem is that they screwed up with XP... its customers are generally satisfied and have no desire, nor need, to upgrade.
Vista isn't the emperor's new clothes... (Score:5, Interesting)
THAT was when they were building a new house from the ground up, and that's when they decided to build the same house pn the new foundations, leaky roof and swinging open front door and all.
Vista is not a new foundation, it's the same basic foundation as NT3, NT4, and NT5 (Windows 2000 and XP). The majority of changes in Vista are just there to stop the end user from running cable from their neighbor's CATV box to their own TV set (or at least figuring out you did it and scrambling the signal). It's not the Emperor's New Clothes, it's the Telescreen from 1984, with the indows logo instead of Big Brother.
And it's got the same basic Win32 house built on that foundation.
And the roof still leaks, it just tells you "Your roof is leaking... do you want to stay sitting under the drips or move to another chair?".
Windows 7 is rumored to be a new house, with a big old storage shed in the back yard with all the bits of the old house packed away in it so you can unpack the leaky roof only when you need it.
We'll see.
Re:that was my reaction (Score:3, Interesting)
It's bloated monster, and I'd give anything to turf it and put XP or Linux on, but they both suffer from the basic problem that finding functioning drivers is a real pain in the ass.