RSSOur love/hate relationship with Microsoft: What happens now?
By Carmi Levy | Published October 23, 2009, 10:04 AM
Over the years, Microsoft has been vilified for more reasons than you can shake a memory stick at. But the world is bigger than Microsoft; and if we're going to take the time and effort to hate something, it makes more sense for it to be something deserving of hate -- like government corruption, unsanctioned access by certain countries to nuclear missiles, and diseases that evolve faster than our ability to comprehend them. Tossing bile at a mere software company would be too easy if it weren't so pointless.
As Microsoft releases Windows 7 unto a world that has been well-trained to be suspicious of such events, now is a pretty good time to reconsider why so many people have for so long held a special degree of contempt for the company. It's also an ideal time to question why this has been the case in the first place, and figure out what our attitudes should be from this point forward.
Microsoft's failures have always led to success
There's a reason Ford never followed up the Edsel with another car called "Edsel:" Some brands just deserve to die. (It's a good thing "Vista" wasn't a Microsoft executive's first name.)
Most recently, Vista's been the lazy person's target for vilification and vitriol. When it was released, it was big and buggy, and although Microsoft eventually fixed most of the countless niggling problems with its flagship OS product, it couldn't repair the damage to the Vista brand.
Vista is only the latest in a long line of Microsoft missteps. Whether it's on account of the Xbox red circle of death, XP's sieve-like (in-) security, Windows ME's general crumminess, or Bob's absolute disconnection from reality, Microsoft has had to survive a number of high-profile failures.
But the company that's never failed hasn't been invented yet. (Sorry, Google.) Failure is what teaches great companies -- and people -- to achieve greater success the next time out. And in Microsoft's case, its successes far outweigh its failures. For better or worse, Microsoft's influence on a wide range of markets has forged consistency and purpose in those markets, when no one else was willing or able to step up to the plate and take the lead. To wit:
- Desktop operating systems. While some folks have valid reasons for disliking Windows, there's got to be at least some good baked into it to explain the basic fact that 90% of the computing world runs it. Since Windows 3.0 first transitioned Microsoft's GUI-based OS from curious plaything to serious competitor, the franchise has been the centerpiece of an ever-growing ecosystem of developers, vendors and users, all of whom have built careers and businesses around this now-ubiquitous OS. Mass adoption in various markets often seems to be accompanied by a certain degree of contempt: We all may despise Toyotas for being boring, soulless transportation appliances, but we buy them by the boatload because they get the job done.
- Applications. I still get e-mails from frustrated WordPerfect for DOS users who claim writing just hasn't been the same since Microsoft's Word vanquished WordPerfect's offering -- and, rather starkly, WordPerfect Corporation itself. Whatever. I still have nightmares when I remember trying to move data between Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect. Microsoft's Office paradigm redefined how we got work done, and its market dominance made it easy for me to share my work with virtually anyone else who mattered.
- Development. The catch-as-you-can state of programming languages before Windows-based machines took over forced developers to either invest significant time in learning multiple languages, or risk backing the wrong horse by choosing the wrong one to learn. Products like Visual Basic opened up development paths to more users and broadened the landscape for consumers and businesses alike. Suddenly, programming wasn't so arcane.
- Networking. While Novell rightly gets credit for defining and popularizing the modern Local Area Network, Microsoft's Windows NT Server assumed the mantle and drove the concept into the heart of corporate IT. It certainly wasn't always pretty, especially if you were responsible for patching and securing it, but it was a good enough, familiar enough product family for most organizations.
A kinder, gentler Microsoft
As it brings Windows 7 to market, Microsoft is showing signs of greying around the temples. Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than in the evolution of its CEO, Steve Ballmer. Long known for being an exuberant -- sometimes overly so -- Microsoft booster, Mr. Ballmer's antics, from throwing chairs to cheerleading during keynotes, are near-legendary. But somewhat uncharacteristically, his behavior during the Windows 7 launch has been nothing short of reserved and reflective.
Through Ballmer, we see a Microsoft that isn't so much monolithically monopolistic as it is customer-centered and, dare I say it, soft around the middle. Could this be a kinder, gentler Microsoft? Perhaps. The company makes it clear that consumer feedback to Vista's failings guided its Windows 7 development effort. And as new software delivery paradigms threaten its OS and productivity software dominance as never before, its efforts to build businesses in previously non-core sectors (Windows Azure Platform, anyone?) provide glimpses into a company that has come to terms with being merely mortal.
What's left to hate?
So this clearly isn't your father's Microsoft. But is that a good or a bad thing? Is a post-antitrust, post-king-of-the-world, post-desktop company that doesn't rampage through its markets as much as it carefully steps through them necessarily a good thing for the broader tech market?
Perhaps so. The tech landscape already has an heir apparent in Google, which now finds itself in the similarly unenviable position of lightning rod for those who seem to always need a lightning rod. By virtue of its size and perception as a monopolistic player, Google now falls under the same harsh criticism that had defined Microsoft for the better part of a generation.
Which leaves Microsoft to define a new path for itself, unencumbered by the weight of the constant attention typically afforded a singular leviathan of a given industry. It also leaves those of us who habitually cast an evil eye on this or any company, to wonder whether doing so serves any real purpose at all. Anyone who flogged Microsoft for the sins of its most recent Windows products, lost any significant reason this week to go on doing so. Sometimes, it just pays to be nice.
Carmi Levy is a Canadian-based independent technology analyst and journalist still trying to live down his past life leading help desks and managing projects for large financial services organizations. He comments extensively in a wide range of media, and works closely with clients to help them leverage technology and social media tools and processes to drive their business.
http://www.promdressonsales.com/
http://www.weddingdressart.com/
http://www.dresses4dancing.com/
http://www.dressupinyou.com/
http://www.hidresses.com/
http://www.digdress.com/
http://www.promdress2go.com/
http://www.promdress2u.com/
No- it's around for a while. But since it's used more by consumers than business users, I think opening it up will allow for some interesting consumer level products. In the enterprise, it's all about eliminating .pst files because of all of the technical and legal hurdles they present.
Score: 0
|These are tools, not relationships. If people choose to form a cult around what truck they drive, that's their choice, but it should more of a study on the quirks of humanity.
On the other hand, we DO have so much invested in these operating systems. Anyone want to do a study to measure the overall investment/weight in them? I figure it would include:
1. The cost of the last 10 years worth of all software that was developed for the OS.
2. The profit from such.
3. The investment into the OS by all users, and the profit from using that OS.
4. The investment and profit made by the company (MS, Apple, etc) for the OS itself.
These numbers would be MASSIVE. This is why we feel such a profound investment in the OS we choose, and why it's so hard for a company (and even individuals) to make the switch.
As long as Unix/Linux, Windows, and OS X pretty much do what we need to do...for any other new OS to jump in be successful, it would have to be astronomically better. Think World of Warcraft, when it exploded forth in a somewhat stagnant and dull market. Think of all the stillborn MMO's that have come out since!
Also, we should give credit where credit is due, something I often see these writers and people on this board are not willing to do. The fact is, Windows is satisfying to many, many people, as is OS X and Unix/Linux.
Score: 0
|"Microsoft failure has always led to success."
Perhaps it should be noted that people have paid good money for Microsoft's failures.
Its success is due to marketing their failures as "success"
Score: -1
|I'm agree with you!
Score: 0
|I really though that we would get a balanced view in this article when I saw the heading, but no.... just some more one sided drivel. This is how MS stepped up to the plate:
Desktop OS. - I use 7 on my laptop. I like it. It does everything I want it to do, but to compare it to Toyota is strange. You are right, we buy Toyota to get the job done.....we use MS OS to get our games/apps to work. Slight difference. MS enjoys better support from most of the application developers. The developers are also after marker share. They absolutely don't support MS because it is the best, they couldn't care less.
Applications. - To compare WP and Lotus to Office is a little like comparing a new Lexus to a Model T, Both great in their time.
Development. - I made the fatal mistake to develop some apps in the days of VB3. Too lazy to do things properly, just wanted to do a quick job, instead of using C like I was used to do. There was virtually no backward comparability for the code from VB3 till now. Every version change virually required a rewrite. How lame is that!
Networking. - When I started in this industry Novell had 80% market share. Did they loose it because MS NT4 was better? Anyone with a little sense and experience will tell you that that was not the case. The difference was Novell being passive and MS being aggressive in their marketing. MS wanted it more. Kind of a similar scenario we are facing with Apple and MS in the desktop OS arena.
Score: 0
|you talk about vista ,but you do not talk about linux,check then out they suppass windos by amile
Score: -13
|Apparently you need to add a few more repositories for a decent spell checker...
Score: 6
|Linux surpass windows? Maybe some day but not until they get better at helping users.
I have a linux machine as an experiment and I have one small problem (or in windows it is small).
I ask for help on numerous forums and instead of getting simple, helpful input. I get pages and pages of droning from people who like to talk but can't solve problems. If linux wants to be mainstream it has to dump it's geek/freak nature and become something useful and USER FRIENDLY!!
Is windows perfect? No. Is Mac perfect? double No. But they do target people who don't care about whats under the hood.
I.E. consumers with cash and no desire to learn whats under the hood.
Score: 4
|I am sorry, but the whole "linux is the holy grail" is a bunch of BS. An operating system should not require a good deal of research just to figure out how to install a program. An operating system should not make you want to throw the computer out the window just trying to get that graphics card driver set up properly, or the WiFi to even function. Until these issues are fixed it will remain a toy for enthusiast. Sure I am sure it can be a good OS if you are willing to take the time to learn how to use it, but who is? I've got better things to do with my time.
Score: 2
|@Nova
Honestly I don't think Linux will ever pass Windows. It is just never going to be that user friendly I don't think. If Apple was smart and didn't require proprietary hardware they could come closer than anybody in putting a significant dent in Windows sales. But as long as it is tied to overpriced Apple hardware it is going to remain a niche.
Score: 1
|I never understood why people who use microsoft hate microsoft. You do have other options. Sure on occasion it would be fine to not like to much broken software. But to be fair we should hate ALL software developers. Cause I rarely come across a perfectly writen piece of software. The OS is one thing, the tons of software and games i install is another. Software issues galore. If you do the math, microsoft being the biggest of them all must have the best programers. Yet we got vists, need i say more. Apple is none to perfect either. I could write a book on there poorly writen code.
Score: 2
|Still a love/hate. Love Windows Vista Business. Never crashes, it's not a memory hog, and of course I always shut of UAC. Windows 7 crashes, is a memory hog and can't quite turn off UAC.
Always looked forward to the next Windows. but 7 is the first one I might want to avoid. It's like a downgrade from Vista. Rather keep my Vista.
Score: -5
|Maybe windows 7 crashed in beta, but i for one never seen it happen. I have used it for over a year. and now have the retail copy. It uses less memory then Vista, anyone will tell you that. And turning off UAC is beyond simple. I have no idea where you get your facts. The crashing might be a driver issue for some device of yours or something. But that would have nothing to do with Microsoft.
Score: 4
|"And turning off UAC is beyond simple."
It's also "beyond stupid"...
Score: 3
|I agree. I think UAC is a great addition. What is so hard about clicking yes every once in a while? Personally I like the added security.
Score: 1
|I love how the Linux advocates love to bash UAC, yet prefer to use an OS that requires a root password to be typed in to perform the most mundane and simple tasks.
Which one is more intrusive and cumbersome to get around again? =)
Score: 3
|People hate Microsoft because Microsoft is a monopoly that steals their money. Microsoft is like a company that charges you for air or sunlight. It costs nothing to make an operating system, but everyone is forced to pay Microsoft for something that Microsoft can make for free. Yes, you may say that Microsoft is paying employees to write their operating system, but after XP came out, for 7 years Microsoft employees "worked" and all they managed to do was make XP worse and turn it into Vista. After another two years, all Microsoft is done is take out most of the extra bloat they put in Vista and they have Windows 7, which is still SLOWER than XP even on the quad-core monster machines it is optimized for. Basically, Microsoft does nothing and in return for that they steal $100 from everyone who buys a computer.
Score: -14
|What's left to hate, you say?
I still hate the fact that a few months after I got the MS Fingerprint Reader, it was rendered useless by the fact that I chose to switch to 64-bit. I'm to this day, paranoid about MS labelled hardware and I wish they'd do something about it. I can completely understand discontinued products...but the Fingerprint Reader debacle just seemed like some kind of confusing clusterf%^k.
Nothing else really.
Score: 0
|Microsoft offers refunds/exchanges on products you are not satisfied with, and they've been known to do it after warranty expires. Call them up and let them know your issues.
Score: 2
|Nothing else?
How about the complete lack of developer support behind IE add-ons?
How about their insanely stupid round of commercials; the "I made this" BS? They are hand-feeding Apple the perfect response: "Mac OS X" by Apple. "Windows 7" by Soccer Moms.
How about their complete screw-up of not building support into Win7 for a direct, easy, Xp to Win7 upgrade? Dumb doesn't even begin to describe that boneheaded move.
No, there's plenty to hate about some of the recent decisions they have made. They can't market to save their lives, and they constantly "break" good product releases by hamstringing their adopability.
Don't get me wrong; Win7 is a godsend (for us), but even it has it's issues.
Score: 1
|"Dumb doesn't even begin to describe that boneheaded move."
You couldn't be more correct.
Windows 7 is built on the Windows Vista kernel.
Windows XP can be upgraded to Windows Vista with extreme ease, but not Windows 7.
Windows XP is Microsoft's largest competitor to Windows 7, yet Windows 7 runs just as well if not better on the same hardware.
Dumb indeed.
There was a time when a clean install was far more preferable to upgrading, but I never had a single issue with upgrading Windows XP to Windows Vista, and extensive benchmarks by others with far more time on their hands have noticed the same results.
Windows 7 does not contain any significant or even minor deviations to the underlying file structure or registry than Windows Vista... so why Microsoft did not allow an upgrade path is beyond me.
Score: 0
|I still think Win7 is Vista 2.0, but I can't really disagree with anything you said. One thing in particular stands out: Microsoft is awful about coming up with little experiments like Active Desktop, IE add-ons, etc. and then almost immediately abandoning them. Never understood this. Its like even *they* don't have any use for these bells and whistles. And you aren't kidding about Seven having "issues". Even if you love the interface there's a lot of bizzarro happening under the hood.
Score: -4
|Runs just as well if not better on the same hardware? Are you serious? Look up any performance test, done by anyone *except* Microsoft for a major reality check.
Score: -4
|"Runs just as well if not better on the same hardware? Are you serious?"
Absolutely. Going by personal experience, no less.
Reality Check: My hpze2113 ran Windows XP Like. A. Dog.
Took over a minute to boot, the wait times between launching a program and actually using it were horrendous....and this was on a fresh install of XP.
I put Windows 7 Ultimate on it. Boots in 30 seconds flat, desktop is usable the moment it appears, and programs are usable seconds after clicking them.
I don't need any performance test by Microsoft or anyone else. I witnessed it for myself.
That's one example. The other: My desktop. AMD 4100+ x64 Dual Core, 2GB RAM, SATA (striped and mirrored). XP won't even install. Period. There's no floppy drive in this beast. XP simply does not support my RAID chipset OOB. Vista ran decently, but I couldn't stand the UI. Windows 7 kicks it's a** in every way.
(Note: I did, at one time, put TinyXP...I believe Rev09... on it. It did fly, but then, it was also a hacked, stripped down install)
Score: 7
|It makes little sense to upgrade-in-place from WinXP to Win7 due to Registry conflicts and changes, drivers and possible application incompatibilities. While things may initially be fine leap-frogging from XP to Vista to Win7 -- it's far more likely you will at one point wind up with conflicting odd behaviour that will be an absoulte nightmare to try and troubleshoot due to the legacy upgrade-path taken.
Win7 will come on new machines, and that is how _most_ non-technical users will be acquiring the OS. Anyone else desiring an upgrade is either technically adept or has a friend/acquaintance that is or will pay a small fee to a mom-and-pop computer shop to upgrade for them. In all of these latter cases there is very little problem with backing up files, clean install and re-install applications. Not to mention the fact that it would likely be faster to do a backup and clean install than wait for an upgrade in place to finish.
I highly doubt the lack of an upgrade path to WinXP to Win7 is even on most end-users radar. Anyone remotely interested in upgrading an Operating System would know how to do it properly.
Score: 4
|"I highly doubt the lack of an upgrade path to WinXP to Win7 is even on most end-users radar. "
It is now that Apple has targeted it in their ad campaign. Whether it would have ever been a real issue is now a non-issue.
Welcome to the world of perception and marketing.
Score: 2
|"Windows 7 is built on the Windows Vista kernel."
I guess it still surprises me that people say this, as if it were something bad or good, rather than just a fact.
This statement is also just as true:
Windows 7 is built on the Windows 3.1 NT kernel.
The NT kernel has not changed a lot since it was designed. This also is not a bad thing, as the NT kernel was designed to be layered and extendible, so that new technology could be added to kernel API layers without much fuss. (The WDDM in Vista or the previous change of Video drivers in NT 4.0 are examples of this. As it was easy, and transparent to the applications.)
So yes Windows7 is built on the Vista kernel, which was built on the Win2003 Server Kernel, which was built on the Windows XP kernel, which was built on the Windows2000 kernel, which was built on the Windows NT 4.0 kernel, which was built on the Windows NT 3.51 kernel, which was built on the Windows NT 3.5 kernel, which was built on the Windows NT 3.1 kernel.
If you look at the NT kernel, it is an evolution with features added, without the need for a massive revamp at any point along the way. It still handles things in Objects, still has the SAME token based Object security system, etc etc etc.
The original NT HAL was about 64KB, it is now about 256KB - this is not a massive change considering all the technology changes in 20 years.
Even the locking and SMP locking changes in Win7 were 'easy' because of the layering API concepts of the NT kernel, where more granularity and locks could be adjusted, removed, etc without affecting upper layers of the OS.
The WDDM example is also good, as MS left in the XPDM video model and just added the WDDM model, so the video system can run in either mode, and applications and the kernel could care less, but the way the two systems work are vastly different, with the WDDM even providing VRAM handling/virtualization back through to the NT kernel and also GPU scheduling, again, back to and through the NT kernel, without massive changes in the NT kernel. This is where the NT kernel model is slick and why the designers of the NT architecture knew what they were doing.
Score: 3
|Well I didn't want to nitpick :/ lol
Ok, well concerning dev. support behind IE add-ons, I suppose I don't really care. I think it's a bit much to throw deep work into a browser people love to hate, despite the fact that you ship it with the OS. I think making it safe, secure and quick enough to browse on is sufficient. Hand holding addon developers is just not something I believe is that important.
The commercials, same deal. I don't really care/it doesn't phase me. The second they make good ads Apple complains. I just want them to get some on air visibility, and it's happening. While I think hey have the means and wit to take on Apple, I doubt they want to sink money into the lawyers they'd have to deal with fending off Apple for each little detail Apple finds incorrect/wrong/slanderous/etc. Apple has a history of being well able to dish it, but not to to take it.
XP to 7...again, I don't care. It's a habit for me to put all my things on another drive or partition no matter what OS I use. I have a doc file with a list of programs I use so that I don't forget the ones I don't use frequently, and 2 folders with sub-folders containing drivers and programs (as current as can be) and so when I need to install/upgrade all I really have to do is xfer my documents directory whole to that drive and remember to copy the saved games from whatever games I play (moot now, since I mostly play a MMORPG), format and install. And I do this for ALL my OSs.
I agree completely that it would have been awesome for there to be a direct upgrade path...however, I personally think it's better this way. Why? There are just too many things that can go wrong with an upgrade even from Vista because of the sheer volume of software available for Windows. I've mucked up Linux before because of the same reason, which is why I adopt the 'off system drive' procedures I use now.
It's dumb, but maaaaaybe it's necessary. Dissuade people from trying to move from their 10 year old XP based systems all clogged up with old software and drivers to 7.
And you are right, there's plenty more to hate about MS and how they operate. I still don't get why they're charging people 120 [officially] for the upgrade. $50 for HP, 75 for PRO and 100 for Ultimate RETAIL is what it should be, get rid of the upgrade tag....tack 50 on each for a 3 user family pack, and call it a day.
Ohhh...and the one last thing I'm not happy about is whatever WHQL entails because sometimes Windows Update can give you the nastiest drivers. For example, there's a little issue right now between Ralink Wifi Drivers and Windows Vista/7 64bit where on systems with more than 3GB of RAM, the driver crashes pretty much religiously after any amount of work. Windows Update is even shipping affected drivers, which means although perhaps a very particular issue, that the WHQL process has holes.
Still, I like MS, and I do love my Windows 7.
Score: 0
|@ AnthonySPT
I've always respected the depth of information that you provide, and the manner in which you've always offered it... but if you were trying to elaborate on the kernel issue on my behalf, it certainly was not necessary.
I'm all too familiar with the evolution of one of the most advanced and elegant kernels in computing history.
However, my mention of it was simply to highlight the fact that it was merely a more refined version of a kernel from an OS that *did* allow a direct, smooth transition from Windows XP, whereas Windows 7 does *not*.
Surely Windows Vista and Windows 7 cannot be *that* dissimilar.
Score: 0
|@ Balderstrom
"It makes little sense to upgrade-in-place from WinXP to Win7 due to Registry conflicts and changes, drivers and possible application incompatibilities."
First, I guess we'll never know. Since it's currently not possible in the first place, there's no way to prove or refute that statement.
Secondly, that didn't prevent smooth, flawless upgrades from XP to Vista... which is essentially a less mature Windows 7.
Score: 0
|Well the Windows 7 built on Vista kernel really means. there's not a whole lot different from Vista and 7. It'll be another Windows 2000 vs Windows XP moment. Which those two are basically the same thing. (with some stupid OS called ME in the middle.)
Score: 0
|@ psycros
Major reality check, you say?
The reality of the situation is that my personal experiences basically mirror those of PC_Tool's... and then some.
Add to his scenario a few more PCs that I have at home, plus a laptop older than his... all of which run Windows 7 Ultimate (beta, RC, RTM) as well as Windows XP ever did.
The oldest desktop that I'm using has an AMD Athlon 64 (single core) 3400 and 1.5 GB DDR. Windows Vista on that machine was horrible. Windows 7... fantastic. Reality check indeed. I honestly didn't think it would run it at all.
The older laptop is a Gateway with a Pentium 4 2.8 and 1 GB DDR. Granted, Aero was disabled, because there were no updated drivers for the older Intel graphics chipset, but it still ran just as well as Windows XP ever did on it. Windows Vista wouldn't even install... at all. Reality check indeed.
My main rig (no, I haven't updated in a while... a switch to an i7 is in order soon): Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe, Athlon 64 X2 3800, 3 GB DDR400, 2x WD Raptors (striped), 2x GeForce 9800 GTX+. It runs WoW extremely well, in addition to Street Fighter IV. Need for Speed S.H.I.F.T. (language filter is a bit wonky) tends to choke a bit, but oh well... it would have done that with Windows XP anyway. Generally it still does what I want it to do, and does it admirably.
The only version of Windows that has come close to matching the performance Windows 7 Ultimate x64 on this 4+ yr old platform is Windows XP Professional x64. That's the only reality check I ever wanted or needed.
Nevertheless, there are plenty of other testimonies that mirror our own, contrary to what you've "found".
Score: 0
|Totally agree PC_Tool...On my 5 year old Dell,it ran XP also like a malnourished dog,no responds and very unresponsive.But now on WIN 7 it takes 1 minute compared to 3,it's like a greyhound on rump steak!
Score: 0
|LOL, I can only imagine what type of loser down-rates an innocuous comment like this. Apparently these geniuses don't realize their supposed to be rating QUALITY of posts, not whether they agree with them. A little example:
"Windoze 7 is teh suck! Mac will own yoo!". This is a low-quality post. Its verbal graffiti, unworthy of the bytes it took up. These should be voted down. Most of the posts on here are of pretty high quality from what I've seen (although I have no idea how much the mods are weeding out trash). I will confess that I once down-rated a well composed bit of opinion on here because I felt it was very unfair to the BN staff, but I almost immediately regretted it. Anonymous democracy too often becomes mob rule - which, IMHO, is almost never a good thing.
Score: -3
|@ PC_Tool: I second your complaint about the broken XP to 7 upgrade path. That is one of the two biggest issues I have. The other is that XPM is not available on all versions of 7. Did someone get promoted for thinking of that?
Score: -1
|@ yountmj: If you did not upgrade to Vista, Microsoft lost money. If you must purchase a full copy of 7, it helps them get well. You also have the option to purchase both Vista and 7 upgrades and sequentially upgrade to reach the end goal of 7. You could "borrow" a Vista disk to kick-start the upgrade but Microsoft should not force you to do that. If they wanted you to have this path available, the necessary software would be on the disk.
Score: 0
|@ PC_Tool: I wonder if some part of your XP sluggishness was due to aggressive A/V software taking its time during O/S and app start-up. I use Kaspersky Internet Security on XP and sometimes it feels like I am in the clutches of an octopus. The A/V software may be less aggressive when it detects Windows 7 which has more self-protection features.
Score: 0
|@ PC_Tool: It is dead center on my radar and nobody's marketing campaign put it there. ~ 70% of the Windows installed base is running XP. We have been told to do a clean install. I have quite a large number of installed applications so that is a terrible solution. Microsoft has made a mistake and should move to rectify it. Offer free Vista disks to those who need to upgrade to from XP to 7. Do not provide them with a Vista key so it will be useless to them unless they are upgrading to 7. If this is not on anyone's radar, they will not need to provide many disks to keep the base happy. It is a good will gesture that will pay dividends beyond those who request a disk.
Score: 0
|@rauckr:
Post 1: XPM - It was targeted at the enterprise customers, thus limited tot he versions enterprise customers would be using. They likely do not want this to become a support nightmare so are only including it in versions that are likely to generate the fewest support incidents. Had they simply included it with every version..... hello nightmare.
Post 2: XP sluggishness - Both fresh installs, as stated in my post. No A/V. :) [Insert coin to try again]
Post 3: Meh... I'm with you, but I can see their reasoning: Perception. While WIn7 will work decently on older hardware, it really shines on new hardware. I assume the no XP upgrade path is designed to limit the number of WIn7 installs on that older hardware so that the performance on that hardware doesn't drag down their metrics and public perception of the OS. Does it suck for those folks running XP? Indeed. Do I think the trade-off makes sense? Well, considering their retail upgrade sku's have never been huge sellers, it might be, but it depends greatly on the trade-off the negative perception the "no xp upgrade path" give them. It may tip the scales, it may not.
Score: 0
|@PC_Tool
If it's one thing they can't do right it's IE. What a piece...
I guess you don't understand marketing. The "I made this" is geared towards the turn it on and go people" who won't lift a finger to become technologically literate. It works because it is geared that way. OSX by Apple.....well alot of people see Apple as they truly are, a company who makes mediocre hardware and a so so operating system at prices that people can't afford.
Win 7 is the best MSFT OS yet. And Windows didn't get where it was today because they are marketing dumb....I'm a PC and I'm a Mac
Score: 0
|*LAUGHING*
I know what it is geared for. I am simply envisioning Apple's response.
...love how you go and call MS users technologically illiterate (to explain why their "marketing" works) and then claim those same people "see Apple for who they really are". Make up your mind: Are these people smart or clueless?
I tend to like MSFT more than I hate them, but a spade is a spade and *no-one* has ever praised Microsoft's marketing "skills".
Score: 0
|@ rauckr:
"If they wanted you to have this path available, the necessary software would be on the disk."
Who's to say they didn't make the necessary path available? There has to be some reason why Windows Vista is the only Microsoft OS that does not require a product key during installation. There is a grace period of 30 days to enter the product key, and during that period, the OS is completely functional.
With the tremendous focus on enhancing piracy countermeasures over the last few years, and with the changes in activation with Windows Vista, I find it odd that they would simply use the Honor System with a major Windows release.
It could also simply be that Microsoft wanted customers to like Windows Vista so much that they allowed anyone to try it for a month, and the upgrade scenario was a complete accident. =)
Score: 0
|"There has to be some reason why Windows Vista is the only Microsoft OS that does not require a product key during installation."
You forgot about Win7 already?? :p
Score: 0
|@ PC_Tool: I don't have stats to support comments on retail upgrade sales. However, I question the percentage of recent system sales where Vista was installed. I don't have comprehensive stats but I suspect Puget Systems sales results are representative. http://www.pugetsystems....-vista-32-bit-vs-64-bit/ This suggests a huge base of recent machines running XP. Microsoft needs to extend a hand to these customers and the solution is simple. Give them a Vista disk to kick-start the upgrade since they did not provide the required code on the Windows 7 install disks. Do not tell them to go "forage" for a disk.
Score: 0
|@PC_Tool
Except their stockholders..............bwahahahaha
Score: 0
|@rauckr:
I personally doubt the numbers are representative. I am sure a few smaller OEM's fell for the negative hype regarding vista, but I doubt any but large corporations "downgraded" to XP by any majority...and these folks will simply re-image (no Vista disk needed). But now we're talking "I believe" and "In my opinion", so we're way off in left field as far as any type of actual determination is concerned. I believe they did it for a reason. I am not sure the reason is a good one. *shrug*
@tmiller_hockey: Their profits/dividends have far more to do with OEM sales than marketing. Care to try again, laughing-boy?
Score: 0
|"You forgot about Win7 already?? :p"
LOL
Seriously? I hadn't even tried it. Groovy! =)
Score: 0
|Microsoft has done far many things which have ruined them in peoples minds than just dealing with Windows itself. Thwarting competition, bribing/stacking ISO committees to get their Ms-OOXML passed as a standard, making proprietary extensions to every existing standard to make interoperability painful, leveraging their desktop/office monopoly to kill competition, copying everything Apple and Google do, charging super high prices for software once they get you locked in via their proprietary formats and protocols, etc...
Windows 7 sounds better than Vista...which it should be as they addressed many of the major problems with Vista...Windows 7 is just a service pack on Vista and should have been a free download or at least a $29.99 upgrade like Apple did with Snow Leopard. Will i use Windows 7/ sure, have little choice. Will i prefer Windows 7 over OSX or Linux, most likely no, but when i have to use it, i will make that judgement
Score: -14
|Yeah I agree with you on OOXML. That is pretty evil, and it's readily apparent it is just Microsoft protecting their turf instead of truly embracing connectivity amongst data formats.
Score: 1
|Damn, sounds like you were describing Apple in a nutshell there.
Just face the fact that Microsoft is where they are because no one else stepped up to the plate and had the balls to do it.
Score: 1
|The reason we hate Microsoft is very simple: MS has always tried to dictate what we should and should not do with our PC instead of giving us tools and let us make our choice. They want to control the flow of information and how we get it.
That's why.
Score: -10
|And because they have been forceful about creating THEIR standards, people are able to go to their parent's house and help them out with their computer, or be able to take a day off to go to a daughter's recital and be able to work from home. Had Microsoft not have been forceful about the standards, we would be in the same position we were in the early 80s: working at home with an Apple II, working with an IBM PC at the office, helping dad with their Spectrum computer and playing games with a friend in a Commodore 64.
Score: -2
|@soundchazer - not sure i agree with that. interoperability would have happened without Microsofts monopoly. Choice is good, right? having multiple platforms is a good thing as it keeps all parties on their toes and lowers costs. vendor lock-in is bad.
Score: -8
|THEIR standards/decisions have ended up burning them again and again. ActiveX, SMB2, no firewall on an OS released in the internet age. Eventually, their shovelling themselves into a pit, and I truly fear the damage to a company that is so entrenched in there with them to get buried up to their necks.
Score: 0
|Don't know, I still see BeOS and cry because Microsoft did their best for them not to grow. BeOS was a wonderful breath of new air to the OS world and died with Microsoft's help (not just because of Microsoft). I still hate them for that and many other things they did wrong to others. I can care less if they do a bad product, that's their problem, but fiddling with what others do to improve our user experience is what drives me mad. I really hope that facet of them is long gone.
Score: -1
|Don:
I must have missed something. I used BeOS when it became available on the x86. What did Microsoft do to it?
Score: 2
|Standards...
Well Windows did usher in a new age of standards that were needed. People FORGET that prior to the Windows Ecosystem, OSes were either too hands off or too hands on with no options.
Windows was the perfect mix, as it gave developers standards so they could write a program and it would just print to any printer without the developer having to write a printer driver for every model made. (See Wordpefect). Macs on the other side only supported Postscript and very limited other printing devices, so this gave developers a 'common' way to print, but limited what printers users could buy or use, or things even like Color were seen as 'bad'.
Windows 3.1 went further with more hardware abstraction for developers by providing a common API set for more Video options, Sound cards, and even starting to deal with HD controllers, etc.
Windows NT was designed based on the Windows mentality of an OS kernel that were offer full hardware abstraction, and yet provide SOLID common API sets for applications in the upper layers of the OS.
*nix OSes are in contrast to NT, as they have 'freedom', but even their 'standards' are mixed and not so standard because of what defines a *nix OS (A textual byte stream agnostic I/O model).
The NT developers saw this as bad, as there were no standards for interoperability at the kernel layers nor at the application layers, so NT was designed NOT to be UNIX, and NT uses an Object based kernel system, where every I/O and operation in the kernel are 'defined' Objects, creating a very extensive, yet 'standard' mechanism of operation.
I think too many here are either too young or didn't pay attention when Windows came around, and what it did to make things easier in the PC world.
The *nix world still looks a lot like WordPerfect DOS era where the applications have to support a massive amount of printers. Yes *nix has some 'standards' for printers, but there are several standards, and for applications sending content to a printer not just as straight forward or easy as it is in the Windows Ecosystem.
This also includes Video on *nix and sound on *nix, etc... On Windows you just flip a sound to the API and don't have to worry about the sound card installed, or worry about the 'sound layer' used, and also don't have to worry about if the 'sound layer' locks sounds so that only one can play at a time, etc etc etc...
The Mac world was very much the opposite, as it had a lot of 'standards' but they were based from the hardware, not the OS. So on Macs you had to have very specific hardware, instead of any type of hardware and let the OS deal with working with the hardware for you.
The whole hardware abstraction and API standardization is what made Windows easy to develop for, and let a kid at home with Visual Basic write a word processor or advanced graphics program that would just run no matter what video card, sound card, or printer the Windows user has that would be running his software.
This is stuff the *nix world hasn't even achieved because of the 'choice' that is counterproductive, and something the Mac world still hurts itself with, because Apple still ties OS X standards to the hardware, and then when you have low powered video cards in Macs, applications like Time Machine itself fail because OS X and Apple work from 'hardware' as the specifications for applications instead of providing full abstraction.
So developers end up going back to Windows. They don't have to worry about what sound cards are in the computers and don't have to worry about a new sound card technology as this is 'removed' from the applications.
And this occurs throughout Windows, from the kernel of NT, to the kernel API layers to the OS subsystems that support additional API sets, that all just set their own standards and don't rely on hardware or fragmented 'systems' in the software layers. So whether you use Win32, WPF, or even BSD in the SUA subsystem, they have standards and standard OS level driver and hardware support that the applications just don't have to worry about.
If you want to see where the NT kernel being object based plays out, go look at PowerShell, as it is not just a CLI, it a CLI that deals with 'objects' instead of byte streams and parameter passing as you find in the *nix world. Everything is an object and the objects can be passed around and accessed in a 'standard' method (as the NT OS always has done).
Score: 4
|"Don't know, I still see BeOS and cry because Microsoft did their best for them not to grow."
Ok, Microsoft had very little to do with the death of BeOS.
Additionally, if you liked the main real-time features of BeOS, you might want to take a look at Vista or Win7, as they are only consumer OSes that use these real-time concepts for multi-media handling.
Score: 2
|He's probably referring to the claims back in 2002 that Microsoft had supposedly put pressure on some OEMs not to sell products with BeOS installed.
Score: 0
|Hitachi was going to install in their computers as dual boot BeOS but Microsoft forbid them to do that. It happened the same with other vendors. Microsoft settled the case (there was a case) and we won't ever know what happened. I find stupid that people are deprived of knowing the terms of a settlement about a public case.
Score: 0
|AnthonySPT, you are incorrect on many levels. If you mean proprietary "standards" then yes, Windows certainly brought those in. We are all still suffering under their proprietary patent encumbered "standards" via no choice and high prices.
There were many real standards which other operating systems used. Mac OS was the first widestream real usable OS. Microsoft copied it with the hugely inferior Windows OS which ran on top of the even worse DOS.
Guess you never heard of POSIX? well, i bet you did, but simply neglected to mention it? x.500? Kerberos? OpenGL? (just to mention a few) You know all things Microsoft "extended" with their proprietary crap making interoperability a nightmare.
Of course you know OSX supports more industry standards? Yeah, i am sure you do. And Apple does not extend them with proprietary extensions either.
Score: -3
|Let's be frank... Well, I can be Frank and you can be Sly. Anyone who used BeOS at the time of its death knows very well it was nowhere near ready to be preinstalled on any mass marketed system. Especially not alongside something that was actually production ready
Score: 0
|O_o
Since when it wasn't production ready?
The OS was more solid than Windows 98/ME at those times. It didn't have any backing on applications and hardware support of course, if you mean that by "production ready".
In any case, if Hitachi thought it was worth dual booting then it was their call.
Score: 0
|Exactly...they did nothing to it.
Some of these people need someone to blame so there ya go.
These people make it sound like Microsoft has fallen into a black hole and isn't a viable company anymore....Billy didn't get his moolah from it being a black hole company.
Score: 0
|Boy you really are a lunatic aren't you. Do you just spout things to make you feel better or feel smart?
X500 - Yeah that's old news...LDAP that's the ticket
Kerberos....integrates into LDAP and AD
OpenGL....works under windows.....
SO exactly what are you getting at? Again, if Apple is your godsend then so be it, just remember they are far down on the food chain.
Again......how many games were built to run on DOS as compared to MacOS?
I thought so......
Score: 1
|"...Since Windows 3.0 first transitioned Microsoft's GUI-based OS..."
Windows 3.0 was an operating environment, not an operating system, as it clearly didn't run without some DOS underneath it. It wasn't until Windows NT that Windows became inseparable.
I think even the haters are glad Microsoft are finally realising that they have to address issues within Windows, if they want to maintain their hold on the market, though a lot of people would like to see them go.
It seems they've done much better with Windows 7 and should be congratulated for really putting forth effort to make the computer easy to use, instead of making the user work around Windows. Had they started this around 1994, it would have been nice but any effort is appreciated.
Score: 1
|"Windows 3.0 was an operating environment, not an operating system, as it clearly didn't run without some DOS underneath it. It wasn't until Windows NT that Windows became inseparable."
There are things here that could be successfully argued both ways.
Windows 3.0 was an 'environment', but there are things that technically make it an OS as well. - For example with 3.11, where it is doing 32bit VHD and not using the BIOS nor using DOS once booted, it kind of crossed lines.
Win9x was also this way, and DOS was more of a bootloader than playing any role in the OS itself.
NT also was not Windows and DOS being inseparable, but a new OS, that was design to host a Win32 OS subsystem.
The Win32 from the Win9x days were developed in the same timeline as Win32 on NT, but they are not the same code base whatsoever. Win16 and Win32 on Win9x were assembly optimized code bases with their own kernel, where Win32 on NT was and is portable C with a subsystem kernel that interfaces with the NT kernel layers. So they ran the same software and provided the same API sets but where very much even different implementations of Win32. The beauty is that this was transparent to Win32 applications, so anything written for Win9x would run natively on Win32 on NT even though they were running on two entirely different code bases at the API(Win32) layer. (And this isn't even considering the further abstraction as the NT Win32 API layer was running in an OS subsystem on top of NT as well.)
Score: 4
|Well, the Windows 3.0 box said "operating environment".
Also, NT was not a completely new OS and was giving OS/2 messages in early form.
Score: 0
|"we see a Microsoft that isn't so much monolithically monopolistic as it is customer-centered and, dare I say it, soft around the middle."
What corporate shill wrote this drivel? When has MS EVER been customer centered? When have they? If they had decided to be customer centered a few years ago, they would not now have so much resistance! But they wanted to support businesses over consumers. They have always wanted to support businesses over home users.
I, for one, don't need them! There are so many alternatives nowadays, that we no longer should even consider Microsoft. Unless they REALLY start looking after the end user. But I'm not going to hold my breath...
Score: -2
|