Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > What Went Wrong with Windows Vista?

Reply
Thread Tools

What Went Wrong with Windows Vista?

 
 
Donchano
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-08-2007
On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 15:49:39 +1300, no http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) magnanimously
proffered:
>
>Joe WilcoxDecember is the month for year-end reviews. We begin our first 2007 look back by offering
>10 reasons why Vista failed to "WOW" consumers or businesses.
>
>
>Make no mistake: Despite PR assertions otherwise, Windows Vista did not meet Microsoft expectations.
>The signs are everywhere:
>
>
>
>http://www.microsoft-watch.com/conte...ows_vista.html


Only ten reasons?



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
no one@noone.cnn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-08-2007




Joe WilcoxDecember is the month for year-end reviews. We begin our first 2007 look back by offering
10 reasons why Vista failed to "WOW" consumers or businesses.


Make no mistake: Despite PR assertions otherwise, Windows Vista did not meet Microsoft expectations.
The signs are everywhere:



http://www.microsoft-watch.com/conte...ows_vista.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-08-2007
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, no (E-Mail Removed)
did write:

> Joe WilcoxDecember is the month for year-end reviews. We begin our first
> 2007 look back by offering 10 reasons why Vista failed to "WOW" consumers
> or businesses.


To me, the more interesting analysis is this one: "Microsoft's Big Problem
in a Small Box"
<http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/desktop_mobile/microsofts_big_problem_in_a_small_box.html>.
Microsoft complacently assumed that desktop machines would get more and
more powerful, so there would be no problem running a system with a high
GUI overhead and all the other overheads in Vista.

They didn't foresee that a new market segment would open up for
lower-powered, easier-to-carry, cheaper machines. The OLPC was a hint of
this, but few people expected this sort of product to be a hit even in
first-world markets. Which is what's happening.

So now Microsoft is feverishly trying to adapt Windows XP to run on these
machines. Why XP? Why not Vista? Wouldn't Vista be a better basis to build
on for the future? Apparently not. So they're stuck with trying to stretch
old, obsolete, clunky XP to last a little longer.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Max Burke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-08-2007


"Donchano" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 15:49:39 +1300, no (E-Mail Removed) magnanimously
> proffered:
>>Joe WilcoxDecember is the month for year-end reviews. We begin our first
>>2007 look back by offering
>>10 reasons why Vista failed to "WOW" consumers or businesses.


>>Make no mistake: Despite PR assertions otherwise, Windows Vista did not
>>meet Microsoft expectations.
>>The signs are everywhere:
>>http://www.microsoft-watch.com/conte...ows_vista.html


> Only ten reasons?


Yeah they're slipping up badly there. Maybe their FUD system is broken...

The same sort of crap 'surfaced' when XP was released. It was unbelievable
and unproven then for XP as history clearly shows, there is no doubt history
will repeat itself for Vista...

In five years time we'll still have the same old FUD, and same tired old
crap being posted about Microsoft and Windows by the same tired old farts in
this forum.

--
(E-Mail Removed)
Replace the obvious with paradise.net to email me
Found Images
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke

 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-08-2007
In article <475a344f$(E-Mail Removed)>, Max Burke did write:

> The same sort of crap 'surfaced' when XP was released. It was unbelievable
> and unproven then for XP as history clearly shows, there is no doubt
> history will repeat itself for Vista...


Not really. The world has changed. There were a few initial hiccups with XP,
but it was enough of an advance on what went before that the vendors were
almost universally preinstalling it within months. They tried that with
Vista, but then had to back off and continue offering XP. That's never
happened before.

Also note the item I've referenced elsewhere in this thread on low-power,
easily-carried, low-priced machines, which is a new market category where
Vista has completely missed the boat. Microsoft is desperately trying to
save the situation using, not Vista, but XP.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-08-2007
Here's an amusing statement from Gartner
<http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39291367,00.htm>,
<http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/12/07/vista-die>:

Gartner said companies have "significantly delayed" the start of their
Windows Vista migrations, with most now planning to begin deployment in
late 2008 or even 2009, making some think of skipping Vista altogether.

But Gartner research vice president Michael Silver has warned that the
next version of Windows — code-named "Windows 7" — may also suffer from
the delays that dogged Vista and be just as difficult to adopt.

Really, is that the best they can do for a recommendation? That the next
version of Dimdows could suck just as hard, so they might as well bite the
bullet and embrace Vista?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Craig Shore
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-08-2007
On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:04:15 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:

>So now Microsoft is feverishly trying to adapt Windows XP to run on these
>machines. Why XP? Why not Vista? Wouldn't Vista be a better basis to build
>on for the future? Apparently not. So they're stuck with trying to stretch
>old, obsolete, clunky XP to last a little longer.


There's nothing obsolete or clunky about XP.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-08-2007
Craig Shore wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:04:15 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote:
>
>> So now Microsoft is feverishly trying to adapt Windows XP to run on these
>> machines. Why XP? Why not Vista? Wouldn't Vista be a better basis to build
>> on for the future? Apparently not. So they're stuck with trying to stretch
>> old, obsolete, clunky XP to last a little longer.

>
> There's nothing obsolete or clunky about XP.
>
>


The problems with XP are the same ones that hamper vista, that is crap
64 bit drivers, and all the problems that a 32bit addressspace gives.

It was stupid to intro an os that has an appitite for an extra gig of
ram, when people are already bitching about the effective 3.something
gig limit that xp has, and do nothing to solve this problem.

I still use XP on my machines because I have licenses that work for it,
when I start to get dead machines with vista keys flicked my way, then I
will start to use it.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jonathan Walker
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2007
On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 22:36:14 +1300, Craig Shore wrote:

>>So now Microsoft is feverishly trying to adapt Windows XP to run on these
>>machines. Why XP? Why not Vista? Wouldn't Vista be a better basis to build
>>on for the future? Apparently not. So they're stuck with trying to stretch
>>old, obsolete, clunky XP to last a little longer.

>
> There's nothing obsolete or clunky about XP.


MS Windows was obsoleted when the 2.6 kernel was first released.


--
Jonathan Walker

"The IT industry landscape is littered with the dead
dreams of people who once trusted Microsoft."
 
Reply With Quote
 
E. Scrooge
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2007

"Jonathan Walker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 22:36:14 +1300, Craig Shore wrote:
>
>>>So now Microsoft is feverishly trying to adapt Windows XP to run on these
>>>machines. Why XP? Why not Vista? Wouldn't Vista be a better basis to
>>>build
>>>on for the future? Apparently not. So they're stuck with trying to
>>>stretch
>>>old, obsolete, clunky XP to last a little longer.

>>
>> There's nothing obsolete or clunky about XP.

>
> MS Windows was obsoleted when the 2.6 kernel was first released.
>
>
> --
> Jonathan Walker


Funny how Computer sales with XP over several years has been very good.

E. Scrooge


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
datagrid regularexpressionvalidator - what went wrong? venkat Murthy ASP .Net 0 04-21-2005 06:19 AM
What went wrong here? Philipp VHDL 3 02-06-2005 06:50 PM
IOS update - something went wrong :-) elmar bschorer Cisco 9 02-01-2005 08:43 PM
Client-side Error - How To Determine What Went Wrong Kenny ASP .Net 1 12-13-2004 07:56 PM
Re: Windows XP Recovery That Went Wrong Geoff A+ Certification 0 11-15-2003 11:27 PM



Advertisments