If you don't like Areo, turn it off. It's that easy. And Vista wasn't a failure on at least one of those. Vista had fewer security holes found in the last year than XP. Actually, those number surprised me. I expected much fewer security problems found with Vista than found with XP within XP's first year, but if they're still finding fewer security holes than in an OS that's been patched for 5 years I'd say it's been pretty fucking successful on that front. As to the other areas, you'll need to provide me specifics of how it's failed.
Who mentioned Aero? Vista just has a shitty look that's unfamiliar to PC users. My point was that they were trying to pattern their look after Apple's OS. Throw in Aero and the sidebar and all the crappy decisions they made to take a familiar product and make it unfamiliar to their core users and you have a failure.
As one of the people said in the feedback area of your article, who cares about vulnerabilities? That's not the full story. (Although bringing along 4 of the same vulnerabilities from XP to Vista is pretty inexcusable.)
Microsoft thought they were making a perfect OS in terms of security. We posted an article about their confidence at...what the black ops event is in Vegas for hackers...and Vista was broken rather quickly. At the time, the hackers gave MS credit for making strides, but they said the OS was still too easy to get into and take control.
Now let me ask you, if two prisons were built on either side of your house, and one had 5 ways for prisoners to escape, while the other had 10, would you consider either to be a successful prison in terms of security?
Show me how an OS that won't run most legacy programs is flexible enough for the business world. Not only do I not want to take my company to Vista, I can't. On top of that, there is zero benefit in moving to Vista for any corporation. That's been one of the main criticisms from corporate America.
Spend a lot of money and time moving to an OS with no real new benefits that'll break half my stuff? Where do I sign up?
As for gaming, where do I start? MS claimed Vista would make gamers see heaven, but they're all still looking. Benchmark after benchmark from various PC media outlets have proven that they get better performance when running games on XP than Vista.
On top of that, moving to Vista means half of your old library of games becomes worthless as they won't work on Vista. What a gaming paradise!
I certainly didn't expect corporate America to immediatelly jump on the new OS in the first year. I don't know of ANY business that upgrades OS within the first year of release. I was really confused as to why they released it to business 2 months before they released it to everyone else. On the other point, what have home users been told they aren't allowed to do?
I do know businesses who upgrade rather quickly. But hey, since this is XP versus Vista, let's figure out who has upgraded to Vista versus how many went to XP in the same time frame. I guarantee you the numbers won't even be close. Vista is being rejected by corporate America. That's why the XP "end date" keeps getting shoved back.
Take Dell as exhibit A. They sell Vista, they're one of the primary companies that will have to stop selling XP, yet what OS are all their users on? XP with no plans to switch anytime soon.
Do you need a bigger endorsement than the reseller not even using the product?
In terms of what home users can't do, you do understand that significant portions of Vista were designed to help folks like the RIAA right? One of the big "security" things about Vista in MS's eyes was to stop piracy or the sharing of movies/music/etc.
As soon as you give me some specifics of how it was a colossal mistake, I can see about addressing those.
Vista has not even remotely sold in the numbers Microsoft expected, corporate America hasn't embraced it and is actually doing everything it can to keep from transitioning to it, home users are terrified of it, Apple has made commercials mocking Vista's troubles, the PC media hates it, benchmarks prove XP runs better, the PR battle has already been lost, etc.
But you're right. It's a monumental success.
The arguments I always hear about MS shoving things down the users throats makes me chuckle.
Why? Because you think the truth is funny?
Of course, Microsoft shoves their new OS down everyone's throat. To think anything different is pure insanity. I mean, they're a fucking business that has invested millions upon millions on Vista being a success. They HAVE to shove it down people's throats. That's why XP's "end dates" have been so public. That sort of shit has never been such a big deal previously nor so quick. Of course, the XP going away shit didn't start until Microsoft realized people weren't lining up in droves to buy Vista.
On the other hand, certain groups always acuse MS of never coming up with original ideas and stealing everyone else's.
On the other hand of what? I think you're missing a sentence. "On the other hand" is supposed to be used when you're discussing two contradictory points.
Otherwise, it's insane to think they could even stay in business, much less capture over 80% of the market.
Let's be honest here, Microsoft has secured that 80% market share despite themselves.
Look I'm a Microsoft user. Most everything in my company is MS because I put it there. Ditto for my last place of business. I don't recommend Linux or Apple to my clients. Yes, MS has made a lot of good software over the years. Yes, they've done a decent job of supporting that software (it's impossible to be perfect especially with their number of clients and products).
However, that doesn't mean I have to bend over and take it in the ass from them and pretend I like it. Horseshit. Nor do I have to pretend everything they touch is perfect.
Truth be told, Microsoft came around at the right place and right time. Bill made some pretty bold moves to get them in a position to offer an OS for PCs. Then he used his company's power to keep other companies from getting a solid share of the market. Argue that all you want, it's true.
For example, Novell had a FAR, FAR, FAR superior networking product, yet Microsoft was able to keep them from getting a bigger foothold in the market place. Think that was just all about MS's products being better? Everyone knows that's horseshit, but MS had better marketing.
At a time when Novell and similar companies were trying to make great products, MS was making good products and creating a marketing buzz around them. Quick name another OS that actually had a launch "event" featuring an aging band singing the fucking OS's theme song.
Microsoft became a buzz word. (Understand, this is not some condemnation of them. It was very smart.)
They've continued this type of strategy throughout the years, and hey, you know what? The DOJ agrees with me.
My point being that just because Microsoft is on top and I use their shit, along with most of the world, doesn't put them above criticism. Despite what their marketing will tell you.
And that's really the story here. Microsoft believed their own hype and they thought they could release any turd on the public and we'd eat it up and ask for more. They were wrong.
Vista is not a great product, it was not released well, and the company has not dealt with the backlash well.
End of story.
P.S. I'm done debating this, there's no point. Come back in 2010 or 2011 when Vienna is released and we'll know by then how Vista turned out.
Edited By Leisher on 1198072666
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell