"Windows Vista has been dragged through the IT industry mud for most of its life, in some cases for good reason. But Microsoft's OEM chief believes that Windows 7's success will help repair the damage to Vista's reputation and polish its legacy.
Windows 7 and Windows Vista share much of the same code, and over time, this could cause Windows Vista bashers to soften their views, said Steve Guggenheimer, vice president of the OEM division at Microsoft. 'I think people will look back on Vista after the Windows 7 release and realize that there were actually a bunch of good things there,' Guggenheimer said in a recent interview. 'So it'll actually be interesting to see in two years what the perception is of Vista.'"
Post a Comment
Member since:
2009-05-31
Member since:2006-01-10
Member since:2005-08-26
Member since:
2007-05-13
I'd say that ship has already left, and those perceptions are hard set. In two years, no one will be writing about Vista except in some likely "Retrospective of Microsoft's 21st century failures" article.
Too many of those frustrated users have long left for *nix OSes like Linux and OSX, and will never give Vista a thought, much less Win7. Win7 will be the last Microsoft OS as we know it, as users will squat on it for ten years like they have XP.
Member since:2009-02-19
You're right about one thing: Microsoft will sit on Win7 until competition from OS X (and Ubuntu, probably/hopefully) forces them to do better. Microsoft, in my assessment, has something of a habit of sitting on the same product, flawed or not, for as long as they can possibly get away with. Not that any corporation wouldn't do the same.
But I doubt that users have been deserting Windows in droves. It's way too entrenched, and many see Linux/BSD as being too technical and too unstable, and OS X as being unafordable -- and then there are gamers, like me, who like Linux, and even run what we can in Wine, but still have Windows installed on our main systems, because there just isn't a viable alternative for a decent gaming experience. Most, I suspect, have not had a bad enough experience with Vista to actually switch to a different O.S. They either use Vista and gripe, or use XP and gripe.
Member since:2005-08-11
Member since:2005-07-22
Member since:
2006-12-21
Member since:2006-07-25
they already did that with Vista, it made XP look like the second coming of OS's 
I agree with other posters in that Vista perception will never change, Microsoft has to accept the fact that Vista will be considered the Windows Me of this decade.
It wasn't all bad PR, Vista before SP1 is slow and has an incredible amount of bugs for an RTM OS.
Member since:2006-05-10
Member since:
2006-07-14
There were a few things that debuted in windows me that were actually decent. But, as a whole it stunk. Years later people don't praise me, and I don't think the situation will be that much different in a few years time for vista. However, windows ME did make me appreciate windows 98 SE more. Just like Vista has increased my appreciation for windows XP SP >=2.
I know Microsoft hates how much people dump on Vista, but they have to be careful trying to tie 7's presumed success to Vista. It might make people think twice about upgrading to 7, if execs are saying its just like the hated Vista.
Member since:2007-05-28
Member since:2006-07-14
Member since:2007-05-28
It's 'Windows Me' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Me) but that doesn't make sense since it's meant to be Millenium Edition so unless clippy thought it should have read, 'Windows Millenium edition' then it should be 'Windows ME'.
Oh I have a headache.
Member since:2007-12-16
And you're putting commas in places they should never be in.
Member since:2005-07-11
Isn't that just a Wiki thing where it only capitalises the first letter? Considering the name is Windows Millenium Edition, the short version should be Windows ME, or WinME.
Member since:2007-03-26
Isn't that just a Wiki thing where it only capitalises the first letter? Considering the name is Windows Millenium Edition, the short version should be Windows ME, or WinME. "
I'm not going to get drawn into a debate other the _correct_ way to capitalise in English, but MS do have the capitalisation the same as the wikipedia URL (check the screen shots in the wiki article).
So regardless of which method is "correct", MS's branding has it as "Me"
Member since:2009-04-24
There is a big difference, though. Windows Me was an evolutionary dead-end - the last 9x Windows.
On the other had, Vista is the foundation of Windows 7. Although Vista had many rough edges, I think it was a solid and secure platform, underestimated by many. I believe Windows 7 will prove that.
Member since:
2006-08-08
While I highly doubt anyone would look back after using Windows 7 and think to themselves "Well it really wasn't that bad after all!" I hope no one does.
Windows XP, while great, has been like pulling teeth to get people to move (and for many good reasons). I really think the last thing they would want is Vista to suddenly appear nice and then have to yank people off to get onboard with Windows 7.
Leave Vista alone perception wise... what has happened cannot be changed and with Windows 7 on the way, put the focus on that and let Vista fade.
Member since:2006-11-26
What does Windows 7 have in store for us that will make anyone look back wistfully and wish they were using Vista? After using the Windows 7 Beta, I see nothing Vista does better. I see many features that were nascent, broken or half-implemented in Vista that have reached usability in 7. Like Office 2007, Vista was an interim release, and Microsoft's sales division was able to get consumers and businesses to fund the second-phase of its product development at some damage to the company's reputation.
Edited 2009-07-23 21:34 UTC
Member since:
2008-04-10
In 2 years time we'll have 16-core monstrosities with 32 GB of RAM common. I think Vista will look like less of a dog on that hardware, if that's what they mean. I know, I exaggerate a little, but a few friends of mine already have 8GB of RAM. Not that much of a stretch to say the high end gaming systems of two years from now will have 32 or more.
Member since:2006-07-14
Member since:2008-04-10
Member since:2009-02-19
I've been fine with 64-bit Vista. A buddy of mine is fine on 64-Bit vista, but had tremendous trouble with 64-bit XP; Getting a stable 64-bit windows was his major motivation for upgrading to Vista. Basically, my experience, which I do not think is atypical, is that 64-bit driver issues have been mostly ironed-out -- at least in Vista, and therefore probably also Win7.
Member since:2006-07-14
Member since:2005-07-06
Vista logo qualification requires 64-bit driver support, so there has been parity for most hardware for the last few years. In the last year or so, IIRC, over 60% of Windows OEM systems have shipped with 64-bit versions of Vista, so there's been even greater incentive for IHVs to have 64-bit drivers.
The major holdouts when Vista shipped were printer and scanner vendors, many of whom only made x64 drivers for newer hardware (or higher-end business models). So if you have an older printer or scanner you should check the IHV's website, though it's unlikely they'll have a driver for pre-2004/5 consumer hardware (particularly scanners).
You can check these sites (along with vendor sites) to see if your hardware is supported.
Windows Compatibility Center
Vista
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/
Windows 7
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/windows-7/default.as...
Windows Logo'd Products List
http://winqual.microsoft.com/hcl/Default.aspx
Member since:2006-10-10
Member since:2006-07-14
Member since:
2009-07-23
Member since:2008-04-10
Member since:2009-04-24
I disagree. I think most people will realize that Vista was an important link in Windows evolution, although it was released somewhat unfinished.
I think it is more fair to compare Vista to Windows 2000 than to Windows Me.
Also, Vista has a more search-friendly name than 7, so it's not without any advantages.
Member since:2008-04-10
Member since:2009-01-03
Member since:2006-01-24
Member since:2009-01-03
Member since:
2006-04-03
Member since:
2006-12-05
...is the ability to switch back to the "classic" Start menu.
Other than that, it's the current ME. Sure, the service packs may have improved its performance somewhat (and damn were they needed...), but IMO it's still a disaster. The damage is already done; people dread the word "Vista." It'll make for some entertaining "worst products of recent history" articles in the coming years though, I'm sure.
Member since:
2009-04-12
I'm a late comer to Vista (just bought this computer 2 weeks ago so my Windows 7 upgrade application has been sent to Acer) and i don't see the problem.
Yes, if this machine was limited to 1GB of ram i might see problems but with the service packs and a sane system administrator (a lot to ask from standard users) Vista is a fine system and feels much more secure than XP.
Member since:2008-04-10
Member since:
2005-08-12
It's kinda sad, but the 64bit version of Vista is quite good. I had nothing but problems out of 32bit, and rolled back to XP many times. The vast majority of my stability and performance issue completely disappeared when i switched over to the 64bit version. You would think it wouldnt be that big of a deal, but it was really night and day for me. The server code apparently amounts to alot more than one would imagine.
Try 64bit, if you're hardware supports it. But yeah the 2 service packed helped alot, but the 32 vs 64bit was night and day for my setup.
Member since:2005-08-11
The code base for 64Bit Vista is the same as 32Bit Vista. It's not like XP 64 which was really win2k3. Windows server (all bits) and Windows Vista are based on the same code.
I think your conclusions are incorrect, there must have been another reason you had so many problems with the 32B version.
Member since:
2006-10-10