Linked by Smith Johnson on Thu 27th Sep 2007 15:22 UTC
Windows According to at least one blogger, Microsoft should abandon Vista before it's too late. It would appear he's not alone in this opinion, as Microsoft has begun allowing users to downgrade back to XP. Amongst the reasons? Poor sales figures and shoddy Vista "Extras".
Thread beginning with comment 274797
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Ditch Vista?
by SReilly on Thu 27th Sep 2007 15:56 UTC
Member since:

After having spend five years developing it? That's just plain crazy!

I do think they need to rethink they're design process and backwards compatibility fetish. No sane OS should have to bend over backwards to maintain this level of hit or miss compatibility.

The Mac model, although much gripped about in the beginning, turned out to be a better solution for backwards compatibility than what Vista is trying to do. Maybe MS could base they're next operating system on Singularity and add an NT kernel running in a sand boxed, virtualized environment? Just an idea.

As for Vista Extras, I was notifies yesterday of DreamScene and language packs being available for immediate download. Now, can we please have some real extras? You know, something that actually adds value? I'm not talking about language packs as any sane operating system provides these without extra cost.

All in all, MS could do worse than learn from the Vista experience though I doubt Vista will remain a flop after SP2. The only question I have is, why do we have to wait for at least one major system update to get a decent OS for our buck?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Ditch Vista?
by PlatformAgnostic on Thu 27th Sep 2007 16:14 in reply to "Ditch Vista?"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:

We have to wait until the major updates for three reasons, the last two having to do with time:
1) Microsoft and the first wave of beta testers only have N configurations to test the software on... the broad user base has 10N or 100N configurations, of which some will simply have problems.

2) XP became rock solid over the years because of a convergence of what Microsoft was doing with patches and what OEMS, ISVs, and IHVs were doing with their systems, programs, and drivers. After XP became broadly adopted, these three groups would lose business against their competitors if their systems did not work reliably with XP. The onus was on them as well as Microsoft to provide a full system which works, so driver and system quality improved. This is not the case yet with Vista. The rest of the world hasn't had enough time to get their stuff working on the new system. Apple writes their own drivers and pretty much all of the system-level tools for the Mac. Microsoft does not write so many drivers and a lot of people write extensions, AV, screenreaders, and lots of other programs that interact deeply with the OS.

3) Microsoft designs their new releases to perform adequately on extant hardware. On future hardware it is supposed to fly. This is true for Vista more than before. Vista is designed for large RAM machines (over 1 GB main system RAM). This is the obvious trend in the computer industry and we see already that cheap systems are coming with this much memory. When you get this much RAM you start to see big perf improvements over XP in app launch times and in system startup (unfortunately hibernate takes longer).

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Ditch Vista?
by SReilly on Thu 27th Sep 2007 16:49 in reply to "RE: Ditch Vista?"
SReilly Member since:

Al three are very good points, I just have one issue with your post. MS is the richest corporation on the planet. N configurations are not an excuse to turn your customers into paying beta testers when you can easily afford 10N systems.

Personally, I find that Vista has gotten much better over the past year with many HW and SW developers working hard on releasing updates and new products to fully utilize everything that Vista has to offer. It just seems crazy that I had to install two unsupported patches to get the underlying OS to actually start behaving itself in a consistent manner.

I, and many others, have had to deal with MS updates breaking Vista to such a point where a complete system restore has been the only option to get Vista up and running again. These are updates that break because of other, mainly driver, updates released by MS over they're Windows Update service. If MS, with all the money they have, cannot even test the compatibility of they're updates vis a vis each other, then what In the name of the creator are they doing with the money they get from the exorbitant prices people are paying for Vista?

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Ditch Vista?
by KenJackson on Thu 27th Sep 2007 18:01 in reply to "RE: Ditch Vista?"
KenJackson Member since:

Vista is designed for large RAM machines (over 1 GB main system RAM).

This is true, but that's a design decision that has been part of the modus operandi that has made Microsoft rich.

This is how it works. A new version of Widows comes out with fanfare and dancing icons. Most people want to stay abreast, so they buy an upgrade copy of Windows and upgrade their PC. But the new version is always designed to perform poorly on older hardware, so everyone suddenly notices how old and outdated there PC is and so they go buy a new PC, including another copy of the new version of Windows.

They just bought a copy of the new version of Windows for themselves, so why do they need to buy another copy? Because Microsoft say so. The decision to design for large RAM machines doubles their income in many cases.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Ditch Vista?
by bailey86 on Fri 28th Sep 2007 08:49 in reply to "Ditch Vista?"
bailey86 Member since:

Backwards compatibility is nothing like the priority it once was. Look at all the stuff which doesn't work on Vista.

Reply Parent Score: 1