What Went Wrong with Windows Vista?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Donchano, Dec 8, 2007.

  1. Donchano

    Donchano Guest

    On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 15:49:39 +1300, no 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/content/vista/what_went_wrong_with_windows_vista.html


    Only ten reasons?
    Donchano, Dec 8, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Donchano

    no Guest

    no , Dec 8, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>, no
    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.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 8, 2007
    #3
  4. Donchano

    Max Burke Guest

    "Donchano" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 15:49:39 +1300, no 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/content/vista/what_went_wrong_with_windows_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.

    --

    Replace the obvious with paradise.net to email me
    Found Images
    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
    Max Burke, Dec 8, 2007
    #4
  5. In article <475a344f$>, 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.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 8, 2007
    #5
  6. 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?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 8, 2007
    #6
  7. Donchano

    Craig Shore Guest

    On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:04:15 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <_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.
    Craig Shore, Dec 8, 2007
    #7
  8. Donchano

    Richard Guest

    Craig Shore wrote:
    > On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:04:15 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    > <_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.
    Richard, Dec 8, 2007
    #8
  9. 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."
    Jonathan Walker, Dec 9, 2007
    #9
  10. Donchano

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Jonathan Walker" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
    E. Scrooge, Dec 9, 2007
    #10
  11. In article <1197176131.720923@ftpsrv1>, *sling did write:

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


    So, will Microsoft have to give yet another extension to the life of XP? And
    yet another? And another?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 9, 2007
    #11
  12. Donchano

    Craig Shore Guest

    On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 18:04:34 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <_zealand> wrote:

    >In article <1197176131.720923@ftpsrv1>, *sling did write:
    >
    >> Funny how Computer sales with XP over several years has been very good.

    >
    >So, will Microsoft have to give yet another extension to the life of XP? And
    >yet another? And another?


    Possibly. In the web site that this thread started off about, reason number two
    of what went wrong with vista is The "good enough" problem.


    Quoting most of #2,

    2. The "good enough" problem. Microsoft's biggest competitor is itself. In a
    market where one product dominates, older versions compete with newer ones. The
    problem exacerbates as a product improves and more people use it. Windows XP
    reached the "good enough" threshold, in terms of features and usability and
    market saturation. To displace XP, Vista needed to be a whole lot better, not
    just the same or even a little better. But Vista isn't the "WOW" operating
    system Microsoft advertised. Vista is a very good operating system and arguably
    better than XP. But Vista isn't a great operating system and, therefore, a whole
    lot better than Windows XP.
    Craig Shore, Dec 9, 2007
    #12
  13. In article <>, Craig Shore did
    write:

    > On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 18:04:34 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    > <_zealand> wrote:
    >
    >>In article <1197176131.720923@ftpsrv1>, *sling did write:
    >>
    >>> Funny how Computer sales with XP over several years has been very good.

    >>
    >>So, will Microsoft have to give yet another extension to the life of XP?
    >>And yet another? And another?

    >
    > Possibly. In the web site that this thread started off about, reason
    > number two of what went wrong with vista is The "good enough" problem.


    It's worse than that. You have new market segments appearing where Vista is
    simply incapable of working, the only option Microsoft can offer is XP.
    It's not just "good enough", it's "the only thing [from Microsoft] that
    works".
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 9, 2007
    #13
  14. Donchano

    Max Burke Guest

    >Craig Shore wrote:

    >>>In article <1197176131.720923@ftpsrv1>, *sling did write:
    >>> Funny how Computer sales with XP over several years has been very good.


    >>So, will Microsoft have to give yet another extension to the life of XP?
    >>And
    >>yet another? And another?


    > Possibly. In the web site that this thread started off about, reason
    > number two
    > of what went wrong with vista is The "good enough" problem.


    > Quoting most of #2,
    > 2. The "good enough" problem. Microsoft's biggest competitor is itself. In
    > a
    > market where one product dominates, older versions compete with newer
    > ones. The
    > problem exacerbates as a product improves and more people use it. Windows
    > XP
    > reached the "good enough" threshold, in terms of features and usability
    > and
    > market saturation. To displace XP, Vista needed to be a whole lot better,
    > not
    > just the same or even a little better. But Vista isn't the "WOW" operating
    > system Microsoft advertised. Vista is a very good operating system and
    > arguably
    > better than XP. But Vista isn't a great operating system and, therefore, a
    > whole
    > lot better than Windows XP.


    Ditto for any/all other operating systems that try to compete against
    Windows XP and Vista.

    But they're conveniently ignoring the fact that most consumer/business
    computers will have Vista pre-installed. It will, over a relatively short
    period of time, become the dominant OS, just like all previous major
    versions of Windows have.

    --

    Replace the obvious with paradise.net to email me
    Found Images
    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
    Max Burke, Dec 9, 2007
    #14
  15. In article <475baf37$>, Max Burke did write:

    > But they're conveniently ignoring the fact that most consumer/business
    > computers will have Vista pre-installed.


    Except for the increasingly popular category of machines which are simply
    incapable of handling the overheads of Vista.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 9, 2007
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. elmar bschorer

    IOS update - something went wrong :-)

    elmar bschorer, Feb 1, 2005, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    613
  2. sammy

    sys restore worked but what went wrong?

    sammy, Dec 5, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    500
    Rôgêr
    Dec 5, 2007
  3. violinand

    Need lttl help / what went wrong?

    violinand, Apr 7, 2008, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    333
    violinand
    Apr 7, 2008
  4. Geoff

    Re: Windows XP Recovery That Went Wrong

    Geoff, Nov 15, 2003, in forum: A+ Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    397
    Geoff
    Nov 15, 2003
  5. me

    Re: D300 Problems - What went wrong?

    me, Aug 10, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    303
Loading...

Share This Page