Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 5th Jun 2008 08:39 UTC
Windows Microsoft is hard at work trying to battle the public and businesses' perception about Windows Vista. They already published a whitepaper named "Five Misunderstood Features in Windows Vista", detailing some of what they believe are misunderstandings. Now, they also published a document wit five reasons to deploy Windows Vista - and why you shouldn't wait for Windows 7.
Thread beginning with comment 317145
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
MahRain
Member since:
2008-06-05

It seems to me that Microsoft is using an argument like "People, you might as well buy Vista because Windows 7 is not going to get better than Vista, so don't hold your breath".

Companies might just look for other OS-es that do have improvements over Windows XP!

Reply Score: 3

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

It seems to me that Microsoft is using an argument like "People, you might as well buy Vista because Windows 7 is not going to get better than Vista, so don't hold your breath".


Maybe because Windows Vista introduced alot of changes that will form the foundation for Windows 7; so there aren't going to be any major structural changes in the next coupld of years. Sure, there will be performance improvements, features being added and so forth. What won't change will be the basic underlying core of the operating system, that'll remain the same.

I find it funny when I see people like you, therefore, piss and moan about that given how much flack Microsoft received for changing things too much in Windows Vista; I swear Microsoft is damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

Companies might just look for other OS-es that do have improvements over Windows XP!


Such as? where is this mythical 'challenge to the Microsoft hegemony' - I've been waiting 18 years, and it hasn't arrived. Apple is too erratic for enterprise customers, Linux doesn't have a dog show given the lack of applications customers require (not 'good as' replacements, they want the *same* applications as they ran on Windows) and Solaris is dying a death of a thousand cuts right now. The changelog so far has been so pedestrian it isn't funny.

Windows is here to stay until such time that the 'Windows replacement' (what ever it may be) can do all what Windows can do - and more, at a cheaper price and more reliably; nothing has come close matching it. Thats not to say that Windows is great - far from it. Its the simple fact that there is no viable alternative.

Edited 2008-06-05 10:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 8

agrouf Member since:
2006-11-17

Such as? where is this mythical 'challenge to the Microsoft hegemony' - I've been waiting 18 years, and it hasn't arrived. Apple is too erratic for enterprise customers, Linux doesn't have a dog show given the lack of applications customers require (not 'good as' replacements, they want the *same* applications as they ran on Windows) and Solaris is dying a death of a thousand cuts right now. The changelog so far has been so pedestrian it isn't funny.

Windows is here to stay until such time that the 'Windows replacement' (what ever it may be) can do all what Windows can do - and more, at a cheaper price and more reliably; nothing has come close matching it. Thats not to say that Windows is great - far from it. Its the simple fact that there is no viable alternative.

They want the *same* application as they run in Windows? Actually, what they want is Windows. Really, the only acceptable Windows replacement is Windows, because that replacement would have to look like Windows, run the apps of Windows (not apps as goos as, but the WINDOWS apps).
The fact is that Many linux distros are cheaper than Windows and can do the same thing and a LOT more and is a viable alternative, but Windows has the monopoly. Linux is the unknown and Windows is the common. To equal Windows, linux would have to be Windows, and even though, if it is not supported by Microsoft, it would not be 'official' and people would still think it is inferior. For people to use linux, it doesn't take just a cheaper and better alternative, it takes education.
And you complain that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't, but all concurrents would like to be in their monopolistic position.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Peter Besenbruch Member since:
2006-03-13

It seems to me that Microsoft is using an argument like "People, you might as well buy Vista because Windows 7 is not going to get better than Vista, so don't hold your breath".

Maybe just a tad cynical. Microsoft will change if forced. There's no doubt, though, that when it comes to Vista, Microsoft botched a number of things. Two things stand out when it comes to business.

Backward compatibility: A lot of software for particular businesses won't run on Vista, and companies now face the prospect rewriting old software. They may get to it eventually, but more likely, companies will keep older versions of Windows around forever just to run the old software.

Microsoft is caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place here. Backwards compatibility hampers the introduction of new features and results in spaghetti code, yet businesses demand it. Hindsight indicates that Microsoft might have been better off making a cleaner break with Vista, while introducing a compatibility emulator, much like Apple has done. They might still be able to do that in Windows 7, although they aren't making much noise in that direction.

Weight: My newest machine uses a Celeron running at 667 mgHz, along with 512 meg. of RAM. Yup, it's a eee-PC. It runs Debian with KDE. It runs them well. Everything is nice and responsive. My second newest machine is an Intel Celeron based desktop with 1 gig. of RAM. The first can't run Vista. The second would run it poorly. I bought these, because they were cheaper than Core 2 Duos with 2 gig. of RAM and higher powered GPU chips. I could afford the latter, but why bother when I don't need such a machine?

My wife works for a large company. A majority of the machines could run XP, although most are still on 2000. This is a company with tight margins, layoffs, and faced with the need to make significant capital improvements in non-IT related areas. I am sure both the IT department and the corporate bean counters are asking why they need such powerful machines to do word processing, e-mail, and act like glorified dumb terminals. Vista simply isn't a very good business OS, because a year and a half after release it still makes unreasonable hardware demands.

The oldest machine I maintain is a Celeron based system purchased in early 2002. It came with Windows XP pre-SP1. It never ran very quickly, and never connected to the Internet. SP-2 would have slowed it further, so it was never installed. It now runs Kubuntu Hardy, which runs well, if not quickly, under 256 meg. of RAM. I could try to bump up the RAM, but frankly, it runs well enough when Firefox and OpenOffice are open at the same time. That's all the person using it needs.

Companies might just look for other OS-es that do have improvements over Windows XP!

They might, but in the next five years, I see companies hanging on to older versions of Windows for dear life. Perhaps after that, they will contemplate a change, but those numbers will be small if Microsoft addresses the two problems I have mentioned.

Reply Parent Score: 3