No Vista Until '07: Should You Care?
Posted by Harry McCracken | Tuesday, March 21, 2006 7:09 PM PT
"Microsoft Updates Windows Vista Road Map." That
press release title is a pretty innocuous phrasing of a great big bombshell: Vista will miss the holiday season. Despite the press release's cheery statement that the product is "on track," it's slip-slided into the new year, at least in terms of being widely available on new consumer PCs.
For as long as there's been a Microsoft Windows, it's been synonymous with slippage, and this isn't the first time that Vista has been pushed back (here's a
story I wrote back in 2002, when it looked like the OS might ship in 2004). But it's by far the most dramatic Vista delay.
It's not good news for Microsoft, which would presumably like to sell lots of copies of the new OS sooner rather than later. (On the other hand, most of the PCs that get sold this Christmas will
still have a Microsoft OS on them--it'll just be one called Windows XP.) And it's a gigantic issue for the computer industry--possibly a catastrophic one for some vendors. It's not just that a new OS is a huge incentive to buy a new PC; it's also that the lack of a new OS is a strong
disincentive to buy, since the simplest way to get a new version of Windows is to buy a system that has it preinstalled.
Already, hardware manufacturers were fretting over the fact that a lot of people were putting off PC purchases until late this year. Now a lot of smart technology buyers will lope along with whatever computer they've got until 2007--and that spells bad news for the all-important back-to-school and holiday seasons. The stores that sell PCs will suffer; even manufacturers of printers and networking equipment and practically anything else that talks to Windows may see their sales drop.
So this is a bad day for the Behemoth of Redmond and the companies who sell products based on its platform. The question remains: Should you, as a Windows
user, be dejected?
And the answer is pretty simple: not really (unless you're the type of geek who camps out at CompUSA to await a new version of Windows--and believe me, I hope you aren't). First of all, we're talking about a few weeks here; if you're looking forward to Vista, you'll get it soon enough. Any PC that can survive in a usable state until December can surely squeak into 2007; if it can't, you can always buy a new machine and upgrade later. (I may do just that myself, since my home desktop, which is now more than four years old, is getting pretty geriatric.)
Then there's Microsoft's explanation for the delay: It needs more time to get Vista security right. That's a pretty darn good excuse; any sane Microsoft customer should be happy to wait a bit longer for a more secure, stable OS. (Some--especially in big companies--will wait a long, long time: For many corporations, Vista won't be a factor until 2008, and maybe later.)
Ultimately, though, the real question about Vista is whether it's going to be a dramatic enough advance on XP that it's worth devoting any brain cells at all to stressing out over its whereabouts. The jury will be out on that one until there's a more-or-less final version to try. But it's hard envisioning it being a Windows 95-like blockbuster. (The good news: It also seems unlikely that it'll be a Windows Me-style fiasco.)
What looks most promising about Vista? It should indeed be more secure, although as
I've said, I think features like User Account Protection will create problems as well as solve them. It'll have decent built-in search, some worthwhile photo- and music-related features, and widgets (er, Gadgets). It'll look prettier than Windows XP (but perhaps not as nice as Mac OS X). It'll have some usability tweaks, although the beta I've been using provides a
less consistent user interface than XP. It'll have a new version of IE. And it'll be the first mainstream version of Windows that can truly take advantage of 64-bit PCs. (That last point may be, long-term, the most important thing about Vista--but it's a virtue that'll make itself apparent over the next few years, not in January of 2007.)
There are, in other words, a bunch of reasons to consider Windows Vista...and once it hits new PCs and the first bugs and driver issues are worked out, it should be a better Windows than XP. But it's still hard to find any one feature that should leave a sensible PC user salivating--or even a few of them that add up to a big deal.
In part, I think, that's because of the Web's gigantic impact on how software is created, distributed, and subsidized. A lot of the innovation in Vista got here long before the OS will, and you don't even need to pay for it.
Want a better firewall than XP's built-in one?
ZoneAlarm and other products are available right now--for free. Covet widgety little applets? The
Yahoo Widget Engine (nee Konfabulator) is cool, mature--and free. Trying to organize your photos? Google's
Picasa isn't perfect, but it's a lot of fun--and free. Need desktop search? There are so many options that I'm not going to bother linking to any of them--and they're free.
Building a new version of Windows is still a massive engineering challenge that takes years, and Microsoft's entire business model is based around asking people to pay for it, whether you pay for the upgrade on a CD or simply buy a Vista machine. That seems archaic in an age when the Googles of the world can push out new products on the Web, update them frequently, and (in theory, at least) give 'em away.
There was a time when most of the innovation in the world of software happened on the desktop. Today, though, the real action is on the Web--and itty-bitty companies like
Riya are doing things which are more viscerally
exciting than anything we've seen in Vista so far. And much of the cool stuff you can do on the Web can be done in any major browser on any OS.
What can't the Web do? Right now, at least, it can't really talk directly to cool hardware. An OS can, and like I say, Windows Vista's 64-bittishness is more tantalizing than its functionality. Perhaps the future of operating systems lies not in tools and features so much as in leveraging the CPU and powerful graphics cards and networking and other hardware to let Web services (and, oh, desktop applications) do their thing. If so, that would be in some ways a return to the DOS days, when an operating system was more like a layer of glue than an environment you spent much time in.
Anyhow, a Vista which had been available in 2006 would have been less than a milestone in the history of computing; one which slips into next year will need to struggle even more to assert its relevance in the age of the Web. I'm still processing the impact of today's news, but I think there's a chance that when we all look back in a decade or two, this delay will be remembered as a milestone...in the gradual decline of Windows in particular and desktop operating systems in general. We'll see.
My colleague Eric Dahl had some thoughts on all this too--and here they are:
My immediate response to the Vista delay: Even if Microsoft pushed this thing back to July 2007 they wouldn't have enough time to make it into an impressive OS. My reaction to every new Vista beta has been the same: "This is it?!" Transparent title bars, inconsistent menu placement (with, as Harry's documented, some apps that don't have menus at all), and a start menu with scroll bars all demonstrate that MS has learned the wrong lessons about interface design. Three months won't solve those problems, it will only increase expectations for a product that's not that amazing to begin with.
In the whole Longhorn/Vista development process, Microsoft had one transcendent idea, Win FS--one of the first things they dropped so that Vista could meet a reasonable release deadline. Whoops. BTW, In case you don't remember, WinFS was a new storage system for Windows that was supposed make finding data on your PC much easier by keeping track of metadata on images, audio tracks, e-mails, and other data files. Who knows when we'll see an actual release of it.
That's the story of Vista in a nutshell: One industry-changing idea that didn't even make it into the release. Everything else is either long-overdue (serious security updates), implemented poorly (Aero and the other visual enhancements), or not that impressive (like we need yet another widget engine with a semi-cute name).
I applaud the emphasis on security in this new version of Windows--apparently the main reason for the delay is so that Microsoft can get that right. And I'm not trying to minimize the job Microsoft has in front of them when they update Windows--it's much easier to create a beautiful, rock-solid OS when you can essentially blow everything up every few years and start again. But already I can't see how Vista can measure up to Mac OS X, and another delay certainly won't help. I guess it's one more reason to watch the XP-on-Intel-Macs effort closely.
That's the view from PC World as of Tuesday evening. You can bet we'll be doing a lot more thinking and writing about this in the weeks and months to come.
Meanwhile, what's your take?
Ha... the only thing i guess I'd like would be OSX to boot on a PC...
OMG... it got delayed ... just like the PS3....
:(
That is the one reason why OS X is so great...the hardware that it uses as the base is tested and approved as are the drivers. OS X is not plagued by crappy drivers as much as Windows is plagued by them.
I use XP and I wish that more software titles that I use were available for Mac. If that were the case it would be likely that my wife and I would have a Mac and a PC at home. However, I can't justify spending $1000+ on a pretty system for home.
Wow! I can't believe that the word c-r-a-p- is censored by *'s!
Well now you can boot vista/xp on a mac, which is one reason why I'm switching to one this year after using PCs for 15 years.
More of the same from Microsoft, really. I'm curious about Vista (I played around with an early build - 4051, I think) and it had some potential, but once WinFS was out of the picture I really lost the majority of interest I had in the OS. I think the hardcore of the hardcore are still burning the candle at both ends for Vista, my shop is still struggling to get users to drop the $150 for an upgrade to Windows XP Pro. For customers who are still using Windows 98, Vista isn't even on the horizon. Ah well, I suppose we'll see when January rolls around. If Vista isn't pushed back yet again...
The BIGGEST thing about Vista is the appearance. How can you writers not get that? It's mind-numbingly boring to stare at the same interface for five straight years. The Aero interface is a beautiful improvement; I just hope it allows more customization than XP ever did. Here we are four years plus and we still can choose hard-edged blue, gross olive or bland silver. I can't believe MS never offered any other themes. People aren't as fired up about security as tech writers seem to think. Bling is in. Bring it on.
I believe it already can be done, or in the process of. I my self am a fan of Windows and despise Mac. Although the new Vista is making me look otherwise to other methodes, nothing about it jumped back at me. WinFS was a big thing that I wish they never canned, but hey what can you do. I hope the next release after Vista is one that will be the OS of choice for everyone.
Nice article
@dan: Actually, no. The OS needs support for the next-gen BIOS like chip in the Mac, and neither Vista nor XP do. Vista will, actually, but only in the 64-bit edition of the OS.
Cares not me, says the bee.
Sorry Jerremy, but there is a way to get around the BIOS using an Intel mac. Check the news, its all been said before....
Maybe Microsoft could innovate if they had some competetion. It just shows the complacent monopolistic mentality that the mighty MS has. Too bad Apple won't open up OSX. Sure, there's a driver issue, but that's more trivial now that everyones using the same chips. Gates and Jobs probably signed a pact back when MS bailed out Apple that Apple would never try to take on MS in a battle for the desktop... Who cares, we'll probably all be running the Google OS in ten years anyways.
Really could not care less. It will be another Microsoft product full of bugs that will force people to run patches and other innefectives (did I say incompetent?) "solutions" released in a hurry that will worsen the computer's performance to a point that will force a reinstall. And then the nighmare starts over.
The only reason I was actually looking forward to Vista is because I'm not very happy with XP at home as it is. Unfortunately, in the company I work, the IT department is just preparing (!) to switch to XP from Win2000... When we'll get Vista, who knows? If ever...
Recently, harware detection and automatic installation in several Linux distributions is becoming extremely good (ex. SuSE), and pretty soon the Linux desktop will be OpenGL-enabled. I have just tested this with the latest Kororaa Xgl-live CD, and it is simply magical (extremely fast). So, we might not care again about any new Windows release.
Yawn...maybe Microsoft will wake up someday and realize we don't really care if they can't fleece us for another 100 billion on a bogus and generally useless release of yet another minor variation of their one good idea.
Talk about milking it....
yeah mike,this is just another way of fleecing us of our money due to a minor variation on a very good software.
That is what the whole software industries is all about?
dont believe the hype, Ha.ha ha. yeah boy!!!!!
Microsoft didn't "bail out" Apple by the way. They did what, buy $150 million in stock some 10 years ago? Who cares. They probably made a ton of money on that one, if they kept the stock.
I'm glad to hear about Vista being boring. Time for ya'll to try Mac OS X!!!!!!!!!
innovators lead, cloners follow, slow cloners disappear. buh-bye and good riddance billy and stevey and jimmy. so sorry to see you fall squarely on your collective and corporate face yet again. make sure to get your whole head in front of the barrell, thank you. and pull that origami waste of silicon out from under the door so it can hit you on the way out...
Well... I have been running Vista for months now (tester) and its great... hold your hat Apple this OS rebuild from ground up is a killer. My money is with MS.
Too all the "Chicken Littles" A few more weeks to wait... gee take your time chaps your in for a shock Vista 64bit and the new OS heart will blow your mind.
It is an engineering marvel - I'm hooked.
Win-FS could be back in Vista after all. Keep hope alive.
Do you happen to live in Redmond, OzeJoe?
uh duh!!! linux kids, linux.
vista is a improvement no doubt...i have been running a tester as well. but i think Mac OS X is still a much better system....what vista has... is nothing but duplicating the mac innovations and a lot more beautification.
But i think it still will be a vast improvemnt over the XP.
I will not install Vista and I don't care about Vista, I hope it will have the same security problems Windows always had.
Linux/Unix(MAC OS X included) is the way for OS-es, and realy, Vista requires 1Gb RAM to start but recommends 2Gb Ram to be able to run some apps, not to mention the insane DRM. Go be slaves to the Redmond Giant I like freedom.
i also tested vista
super wow, omg!
it is the best os in the world!
too bad you don't know anything about it!
i'd ditch windows as soon as some hacks the Mac os to work on pc's, not that i will run a hacked version or anything...
How soon we forget, "WinFS" was called "Cairo" a couple of OS's ago I think. Even if I'm mixing OS code names the idea of a new file system keeps getting shoved off the radar at MS so "they can ship it off on-time" which they don't anyway LOL. Didn't we go through this with Win2K? Maybe MS should just breakdown & hire the guys that hacked Longhorn/Vista/whatever before they got it out the door rather than sending money to Africa & outsourcing to India/China!
I had the beta version running and all I can say is, why? It was rubbish trying to look like Linux, we don't need it, or should I say I don't need it all my software needs run perfectly well on XP, and to run vista you need a powerful PC, there in cohoots with hardware manufacturers to force us into spending even more money on stuff we don't need. "Emperors new clothes" spring to mind! If it ain't broke - don't fix it!
'Microsoft Security' is an oxymoron.
Only six weeks to fix all the security holes in ANY Microsoft product? C'mon now! XP is STILL full of holes, and it's been out HOW LONG?
And as far as the new geek challenge of installing XP on an Intel Macintosh: Why on earth would ANYONE want to put a piece of **** like XP on the Mac? Why? Why? Why?
The functional reality IS Windows on the corporate desktop, and that you never put ANY software product into production until the first service release. To the degree that Vista requires retraining several million sectretaries, it will be delayed beyond SP1 by MS's biggest customer base. Wish I had time to care about Mac (outside the Graphics department) or Linux (outside the server room). The whole debate is two years out for me, regardless of release date. The only useful news here me is that PCs/parts will be cheap next fall!
I wonder if Microsoft will even ship Visa it in 2007 or change its name again? Maybe they should hold off till 2010 and call it Windows 2010 at this rate!
W/e. All i know is that Halo 2 PC will only be available for Vista.....
This *could* be a GREAT opportunity for Apple if they play their cards right over the Christmas season. It would be so great to bring the power and elegance of OSX to the corporate and consumer platforms along with the established graphics/scientific base. To this end, Apple should open up the intel version of OSX and offer competitive cupons for OSX crossgrades to consumers considering PC boxes over the holiday season. Bye bye Vista, may the market send Vista and it's interminable delays down the drain where it belongs.
Macs as we all know are the most secure os you could run Honestly due mostly to their small population. no dought a lot of sales this holiday season will go to mac if other companies don't push down prices and trust me they will, at least for the time being. The problems with macs is their inability to supply the gaming world with some hard core toys. lets face it vista is not supporting a 64 bit processor to run office or IE. its there of the games and with new 64 bit proc on the marked it won't be long before every game title demands one. also shipping with vista is Direct X 10 which is extreamly more powerfull then DX9. So get a mac. hey if you know nothing of computers and all you use one for is docs and internet get a mac. i even encourage it if you want to spend more. and will people please stop B*$(@ about MS patches and updates they are free last time i checked and don't know what the big deal is. it takes what 2 min of your time to confiuqre for the rest of your life its automatic.
I'd like to see hardware companies lose some serious cash this year due to putting all of their eggs in one basket. Maybe then some would think about spearheading a OS movement the way Dell helped boost harware performance and unification a decade ago.
And Harry, I'm sorry to hear about your "geriatric" 4yr-old. It's because of Windows' resource greed that you appear to need a new PC. My 8yr-old is humming along nicely with only a video upgrade. I also use Gentoo Linux, and install only what I need or want.
It's not for everyone, but when you try to please everyone you completely please no one. Apple, Sun, and others mostly target an audience and design around it. MS designs what they want the computer to be then tells the audience to adapt and like it.
I like the idea of more flexible versions (6 Vistas?), but they still tell you you need 1gb ram and a 3Ghz CPU to surf, type and watch movies.
I've had a Windows Media Center PC for several weeks now and love it. Digital TV, recording, FM radio -- very cool!
Best idea is to probably wait for version 2 in about March of 2008. The MAYBE it will be time to switch.
"Macs are so secure"--well, only because no one bothers to write malware for something so few people use. If you all had your wish and the market distribution were reversed, Windows would be touted as the "secure" OS. And it would probably get a rabid cult following too.
"Macs are so secure"--well, only because no one bothers to write malware for something so few people use. If you all had your wish and the market distribution were reversed, Windows would be touted as the "secure" OS. And it would probably get a rabid cult following too.
Alright, I don't hate Apple and I don't hate Linux, but their users can be sooo annoying!
Apple seems to making more money on it's ipods than computers. The only reason Mac's continue to be sold is the antiquated notion that they are superior for graphics and such. Bad machine? No. Superior? No as well.
Linux will be nothing but a sidenote on the desktop until someone produces a version can completely, transparently replace Windows. And that with the user not knowing how to do Anything.
Do I love Windows? Nope. PLENTY of problems there, but they are the game you have to play.
I guess all the microshaft drones are in front of their PCs crying. It is not surprising that this had happened. The last time Microsoft released an OS they claimed it would be the best thing since sliceed bread, but as we all now it is still full of flaws, hence the need for service packs 1 and 2, and don't be surprised when service pack 3 is released. The best way to go my friends is a linux OS.
I dont get it so what if vista ships or not. Programs and applications are what matters. I doubt people really care as long as the internet works, office works and games work then thats all that matters.
i'd rather Vista fall on it's @$$... means more job security for all the techies in the world. don't snap at the hand that feeds - what would IT department grunts do if OEs were bulletproof?
indirectly, microsoft employs every desktop services/IT department in the world (or at least 95%)
"this OS rebuild from ground up is a killer."
If you believe that Vista is a rebuild, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn, NYC. Unless your talking about it being a ground up rebuild of the version of Vista (oh yeah, Longhorn) they trashed in 2004(?) because the code was so over-bloated that they couldn't manage it. It is not a ground up rebuild of Windows.
As a longtime windows (since 3.1) and linux (5 years) user nothing is more of a turnoff than mundane trivial GUI changes:
New Start Menu rearrangemnt--Windows XP, etc.
I read an article somewhere on the web about how Vista might also feature a new start menu--pleezee.
What I really think has always been missing in windows is flexability and modularity. This is why linux is my preferred OS. I can build a system exactly as I want it and forced to deal with someone elses defaults.
In short lets see more security hardening, more powerful features, and less user patronizing. I will look into Vista after its been out a while, but I am not in a hurry--I am having way too much fun on my linux box.
If only Microsoft would allow "the industry" to help them by opening up its source and trusting this same industry, which just happens to know a little bit about security. The other side of this nonsense is that the more Google and Firefox push, the more demanding the public gets in what it expects and suddenly your "new" release is outdated as it ships...
How would automobile companies do if they waited five years between releases?
Why hasn't Microsoft hired the industry best in security to assist them?
Why does the largest software company in the world not have the largest development group in the world? And if they do, are they not allowed to create?
This is not hard, this creating software and OSs. There are standards to go by and there is a world of brilliant people who, knowing the Vista/Windows code, could be doing tons of legwork and creating unbelievable results. But the closed doors of the "world's largest software maker" is keeping the world at bay and shut out...
I feel like a lemming...
Wait... That's right, there is a choice... Apple!
Time to see if Stevie J made a wise choice with his pact with the other devil in Intel...
Axis of power and money = Intel, Dell, Microsoft
Intelligent choice = Apple
Marketing that works = Priceless (get it Apple?)
Google: sitting back and laughing at how easy it really is... hahahaha, an algorithm, hahahahaha, a simple algorithm hahahaha
I am glad Billy is a better philanthropist than OS creator.
Compare and contrast Apple and Microsoft.
Apple announces something, then delivers it soon after. In the case of Intel iMacs, they delivered them within six months instead of the 12 months they allowed themselves.
Microsoft promises everything, but consistently fails to deliver. Vista, aka Longhorn, was supposed to be released in 2005, then it was scaled back in scope and was supposed to be released in the first half of 2006, then by the end of 2006 and now we won't see it before 2007.
Apple's surprises can be maddening if you're trying to plan a few months ahead, but Microsoft's consistent failure to deliver on promises is now beyond a joke. Apple keeps on delivering and what they deliver is to a remarkably high standard.
It will be fascinating to see if Microsoft can finally deliver the secure and stable OS that they always promise they will.
This perceived disappointment over Vista's delay is far from detrimental for consumers. The fact of the matter is that people are seeking ground-breaking innovations that promote creativity and of ease of computing. From Microsoft's track record it has little to offer in innovation other than it's famous "embrace & extend" strategy.
Vista promises more revenue-generating marketing hype for vendors with much less to offer for ill-informed consumers. I suppose some people will buy anything as long as you beat the drums loud enough.
Apple must find a break point in cost, though. You can have the best there is but if the entire mass cannot afford it, are the elite the only people who will enjoy it?
Will you ever see a business model like the eMachine take on the Apple now using Intel?
I will be honest, I would love to use an Apple or anything other than Microsoft/Intel/Dell, but even after 18 years as a technology consultant, I would not know where to start in purchasing an Apple! That is frustrating... And I mean in OS, hardware, and differences between versions... and so on and so on...
So, can Apple sell a ?500 model and win? And market it to the masses? And support it?
You can buy a monster eMachine at ?500 running MS Media XP. As much as I hate to say it, it is a value to the "normal", mass-market user...
Can Apple ever match it?
VastOne
I'm not worried. I like XP. I don't really see a huge need for a new OS. XP seems to do everything just fine, at least as far as I use it. I don't see why it gets such a bad rap. I've been using Windows since 3.1. Never had a problem.
I love Windows, and I love the current Windows XP SP2.....I don't really care if they delay the release for a few months.
I'll wait until comes out.
Windows xp is far from perfect and so are all os. people hype about macs being Jesus who has saved them from the big mean monster called Microsoft. Both os have their good and bads. windows has to deal with an army of virus writers/malware due to its popularity. macs may seem like a great choice to this solution but have you ever tired to upgrade the hard ware on a mac. Mac will never become totaly free until its os is separated from its hard ware. yes you can put xp on a mac however currently your graphics will suck as Mac has used a card not found on most pc. it has noting to do with the dirivers. one thing that annoys me is when people compine about xp needing drivers, macs need them too just the most of them are built in. lets talk $ mac has done a good job in getting kids to try their products (college) due to ipods great marketing. And lots of people claim that without vista for the holidays macs will take over the world (stupid). This holiday you can expect the cheapest pc prices in the world as companies clean out every thing with a 32 bit proc. to make way for vista. no dought this will also drive down mac prices to. every one benifets .
i havent heard anybody mention the most exciting thing vista is supposed to do.. in this day and age of high definition video and home theatre pc's and gaming machines.. vista will be groundbreaking... mac osx belows.. you can put the same video hardware on a mac and play the same game and it will look worse (or play slower).. mac is only good for a certain video editing and programming niche of the market.. its not good for home theater or games or even web browsing.. vista supposedly will support clear channel QAM.. mac osx cant even play hi def video.. they suck
I'm still running a Win98 system from 2000 that I built, and won't have the money to build a new gaming system until the end of this year--meaning I probably won't build until next year.
This delay doesn't really affect me, if only from a cashflow standpoint. If anything, this gives me more time to acquire funds for a new system, as well as wait for newer technology to be released so that the parts I'm considering will be cheaper.
Nice piece Vastone, lot of sense.
Speaking on behalf of the thousands/millions of Mr. Joe Bloggs users who only use their machines for word processing, photo editing and browsing, I couldn't care less !
XP after countless SPs is a reasonably stable workhorse, could be better could be worse. I dont have the bucks to try all the other OSs so I'm not really fussed if Vista doesn't arrive on time, in fact if it NEVER arrives.
Mac is a great OS; that being said, they have priced themselves out of the market for the last 20 years and are still doing so. Mac's fancy graphics are great, but I left Mac for Windows for the gaming. If Jobs wants to really succeed and capture a larger percent of the market, he is going to have to start concentrating on the gaming portion of Mac and bring down those ridiculous prices. So what if Mac is better? Windows is cheaper and you can play a thousand more games on it.
When a 15 year old kid takes his old man to buy him a new computer, what are they going to buy? A computer that is cheaper and the kid can play games on it. Get with it Jobs and stop cutting your own throat.... remember Betamax!!!! Yea your better...Who Cares?
It reminds me of a certain game... "Half-Life 2's official release date has changed from September 30th to Holidays 2003." then to April 2004, then July, then November, finally. Just remember... Half-Life 2 became the best game ever, Vista will not become the best operating system.
at this point, windows will NEVER catch up with OSX! by the time vista hits the shelves, apple will probably have released OSX 10.5 with who knows what new features! lets face it, MS has become a laggard, not being able to come up with anything exciting or truly innovative (except MAYBE for Xbox 360) in years.
i have 3 macs and several pc's. i have NEVER had a total system crash with any of my macs. XP? don't even ask.
Palex9 will you please state your definition of crash. first of i have never had a system truly crash in my life. the term crashed is way overused. is crashed means that your system freezes and all work is lost then i can say with confidence that macs are not crash free. i do admit that MS has been laggey with its os one reason why the head of Windows delvelopment is getting booted. no thats not bill gates. The biggest problem with macs is that they depend to much on the out of box experince. they need to branch out some. they should start with supporting AMD proccesors for start.
Tim in Des Monines Mac graphics are good that is they are "prettier then windows" however once you get in to the guts and that is ware games are macs lack a good dev such as directX. i also admit that macs are way overpriced. one reason why i feel their supporters are being brainwashed some times because they pay some much money of so little in hard ware specks just becuase it has a apple picture on the front. that might be why mac's stock is at an all time high thats ok MS was once up there but that was along time ago. i just can't under stand mac users religious obligations to apple. i have and do use both os and they are almost identical to me just the mac has a MUCH SLOWER Proccesor and cost a LOT MORE.
Timing could not be worse--for the hardware makers that is. Here is the solution. Copies of Vistat are sold as pre-release beginning say 1 October. Also, any machine sold after 1 October gets a free upgrade to Vista when it comes out. Preorders of course get priority before off the shelf orders. An incentive to pre-order and Microsoft knows how the upgrade sales might be looking by the number of pre-orders. Hardware vendors sales for the Christmas season are salvaged--consumers have to go through the painful upgrade process when tehy get their copy, and MS has to pony up free uprgrade telephone/web support. Not the most conventient, but the best path to help the hardware guys at the end of the year.
Timing could not be worse--for the hardware makers that is. Here is the solution. Copies of Vista are sold as pre-release beginning say 1 October. Also, any machine sold after 1 October gets a free upgrade to Vista when it comes out. Preorders of course get priority before off the shelf orders. An incentive to pre-order and Microsoft knows how the upgrade sales might be looking by the number of pre-orders. Hardware vendors sales for the Christmas season are salvaged--consumers have to go through the painful upgrade process when they get their copy, and MS has to pony up free uprgrade telephone/web support. Not the most convenient, but the best path to help the hardware guys at the end of the year.
why are people so anal about Microsoft vista and the whole microsoft being bad, the fact is that 80% of us will buy vista in the future, no Linux is not gonna over grow Microsoft. they have been trying for nearly 18 years and they r the same as they were, if you like mac os X go over to mac os X and stop being so cheap
Vista is nothing but a piece of s h i t. I haven't liked it since the very begining. In my opinion, XP is the most stable (and better looking) OS that Microsoft has ever made. Like it was mentioned in the article... "ooo, it's got Aero glass"... so what? "ooo, it's got a sidebar"... so what (i never liked that in the first place either)
Personally, I believe the very best thing they could do is put a check box on each and every 'Are you Sure?' popup box generated by the OS. Or better yet, just remove them entirely. There is nothing worse than having your every move questioned. It's confusing and irrational. Of course there are about 7000 other things that should also be addressed, this is just the first that comes to mind.
"Is that your final answer?"
YES, YES, YES! even if it's wrong!
What microsoft need is a little "Shock and Awe" to move Vista. If they sprang a surprise of Win-FS back after all, or the introductory price was jaw-droppingly low - when released.
But with all the security they have still not provided anti-virus protection built in, likely because of the major vendors moaning. Still, there never should have been third parties for antivirus, malware and firewalls, they should come with any OS.
Are there any new programs in Vista? Chess? Have they still got the same 10-year-old paint, calculator, sound recorder? Outlook Express has been renamed Windows Mail? Does it look any different?
And if you want to customize the look of XP now you can get Windows Blinds for about $20. (Just stick to 4.6 and NOT 5 or 5.1)
The one thing MS can be sure of in the long term is, YOU WILL BUY IT! Maybe not on release day, maybe not a month later, or two years, but one day.
I am going to try and comunicate what all here, consumers should understand when purchasing a product.Trust your own intelligence and dont follow product propaganda[marketing].When I purchased my macintosh[Emac OSX 10.3]it cost me 800$. 2 years ago I bought a open box HPlaptop/celeron a week earlier and after a week of booting freezing up and only using 1 app at a time @ best 2 I thought I should consider Mac AGAIN!Thats right, I was one of the orig. Imac buyers in 98 [Im laughing now] So back to office max I went and with refund in hand I went to Apple store relizing the EMAC was within 30$.I was again back in Apple's pocket grrrrrrr.I wasnt happy at first thinking what games can i play.that was my only question I could come up, with why I shouldnt buy a mac.That was it.I purchaced tht piece of crap lap top on propaganda.Guess what? it was a very faulty product.So trusting my own intelligence and exp with the products available to what i could afford.Emac is now writing this.
I am a simple machinist.I make less than 35k a year and live in an appartment in the ghetto and i own a mac.I am lol because i read "who can afford a Mac" so many times. From ppl whos software purchases, time and liability and experience from a lesser product should hit the oldbrainer with a question>Was it worth it?
With my mac I got a, recording studio ,music software with Inet radio allready programmed,pictures program,DVD, Ive got stuff i never even use,even a few games[BTW I play halo still online on my mac}The only software ive purchased was Photoshop, the 100$ version and Halo.
In my 2 years Ive had too reboot once.[I kept hitting enter key as fast as i could in chatroom trying to get OSX to crash and this was my test in first week of purchase .Im guessing though i didnt actually need to reboot and if I simply walked away for a minute the CPU and ram would of caught up to my reckless attempts.In a week of my HP laptop use I had over 10 and prob closer to 20 reboots.
Well this what i wanted to share with you ppl.I actually dont like Jobbs and Apples arrogance and the elitist rep they have,also the ppl who use them.I do however LOVE my eMac. PS since my purchase out of the 3 frnds at work who sware about windows.1 desktop not usable and he doesnt know why>HP, another desktop burned up graphics card>Dell , and the last I witnessed ,his browser didnt browse it simply was a pop upserver and after about 20 clicks he could read a webb page.LOL now that S*** is funny!!!!!!!!!
Trust your own intelligence ppl .2 years later you wont regret it.
I've tested almost every Longhorn and Vista beta build and No I'm not impressed. There are some MS insiders at Redmond working on this monstrosity which indicates the frustration and apparent implosiveness potential to this beast they call Vista.
http://minimsft.blogspot.com/2006/03/vista-2007-fire-leadership-now.html
Time will tell as Harry and Eric finalize in their comments. People aren't as patient as they use to be, although its easy to say a few weeks don't matter in the long run. True. The sad thing for me is to say Bill Gates is more complacent and just too damn nice in his old age. Ten years ago at this time 3/4 of the Vista team would of been fired by now. This milestone of an OS will go one of two ways. Straight up, or straight down. FAST. Missing the Christmas deadline is huge. Sure a few weeks might not matter to some, but to most on tight budgets at Christmas, going into debt might be a more enjoyable sitting back on Christmas eve, sipping on a nice wine, knowing you'll have a new Vista PC waiting for you on Christmas day. Who has money in January.
I hope all this wait means less holes. Better yet no holes at all in wich malusers can attack the system to get access to where they are not supposed to. Are you with me?
The concensus here seems to be pretty much along the lines of "Who cares?" and that's pretty well spot-on, I think. There is an astonishing number of people who will judge this (and other) OSes by appearance above all else. Apple realized this long ago. Micro$oft, who knows better, also cannot resist this easy path to riches.
I have no use for Apple, mainly because of their marketing strategy and pricing policy. I would rather use an open-source OS, but I will confess to taking the easy way out because it is cheap and easy to get all the functionality I want by going the Windoze Way. I'm not proud of this, but I have to be practical.
I use Server 2003 as my main OS. It is plain, fast and bulletproof. I had to spend a lot of time molding it into a nice Workstation OS, using bits of XP and 2000, but it was worth it.
What I find intriguing now is the converging of Mac and Windows hardware which, when looked at objectively, is amusingly absurd. From this point on, any differences between MacBoxes and WinBoxes have to be deliberately designed-in. Apple's ineptitude is especially showing. due to lack of backwards-compatibility, something which Micro$oft at least has been traditionally mindful of. Apple, by contrast, has pretty much thrown the baby out with the bath water.
So, no, whether or not Vista is late doesn't affect me, because I have no intention of using it anyway. If my Server 2003 finally becomes obsolete, I will probably cobble together something even better.
You can't compare Windows with any Mac OS because Microsoft's dominance in the market means that they are prime target for hackers and virus writers. Nobody can be bothered to write malware for a Mac because who is it going to upset? Half a dozen desktop publishers and the occasional old couple who thought the iMac would look nice on the sideboard. For this reason Windows code ties itself in nots trying to cover every possible security hole making it inefficient.
Personally I could never choose a Mac because if something breaks on a PC I can order the part and fit it myself, not call UPS to take it down to the nearest Apple service centre.
A 64 bit version of DOS and Windows 3.11 wouldn't go amiss though.