Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

How Vista Disappoints 731

Posted by Zonk
from the overdramatic-much dept.
MCSEBear writes "Writer Paul Thurrott has given Microsoft a verbal dressing down for what has become of Windows Vista. He details Microsoft's broken promises over the years since Longhorn/Vista was first previewed back in 2003. He demonstrates where current Vista builds fail to live up to Microsoft's current hype of the much reduced feature set. From the article: 'I don't hate Windows Vista, and I certainly don't hate Microsoft for disappointing me and countless other customers with a product that doesn't even come close to meeting its original promises. I'm sure the company learned something from this debacle, and hopefully it will be more open and honest about what it can and cannot do in the future ... It some ways, Windows Vista actually will exceed Mac OS X and Linux, but not to the depth we were promised. Instead, Windows Vista will do what so many other Windows releases have done, and simply offer consumers and business users a few major changes and many subtle or minor updates. That's not horrible. It's just not what was promised.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Vista Disappoints

Comments Filter:
  • by yagu (721525) * <yayagu.gmail@com> on Thursday April 20, 2006 @03:38PM (#15167600) Journal

    Well, in summary, the new Vista:

    • Introduces the new user security model similar to Un*x, only 30 years later. But it is (so far) incredibly inane in its interaction model with the user (from the article):
      The bad news, then, is that UAP is a sad, sad joke. It's the most annoying feature that Microsoft has ever added to any software product, and yes, that includes that ridiculous Clippy character from older Office versions. The problem with UAP is that it throws up an unbelievable number of warning dialogs for even the simplest of tasks. That these dialogs pop up repeatedly for the same action would be comical if it weren't so amazingly frustrating. It would be hilarious if it weren't going to affect hundreds of millions of people in a few short months. It is, in fact, almost criminal in its insidiousness.
    • they've taken the "windows" metaphor to its (in their opinion) next logical step, i.e., "glass", offering translucent and transparent windows. But (FTA):
      Anyway, the reality of glass windows is that they stink. The windows themselves are translucent, meaning you can see through them partially. But the visual difference between the topmost window (that is, the window with which you are currently interacting, or what we might describe as the window with focus) and any other windows (i.e. those windows that are visually located "under" the topmost window) is subtle at best. More to the point, you can't tell topmost windows from other windows at all. And don't pretend you can.
    • they've added a "Media Center", but (summarizing the article), it stinks.

    Thurrott says he still doesn't hate Microsoft for not delivering on all of these promises:

    I don't hate Windows Vista, and I certainly don't hate Microsoft for disappointing me and countless other customers with a product that doesn't even come close to meeting its original promises.

    The world needs friends like Mr. Thurrott. He's a pretty forgiving guy. But, it would have been nice had Microsoft really been able to deliver this as promised. I was looking forward to buying a new upgraded computer!

    • It's funny how one of Microsoft's biggest champions (and, despite that, a man I highly regard) really liked OSX [winsupersite.com] and is honest enough to come down on MS when necessary.

      This article and its points (good ones) make me respect Paul even more. Not to mention TFA has some really well thought out points. MS is blowing it, hard.

      • Would you say he's griping about Vista or gloating?
        You can't tell by the score 5/5.

        Now imagine you get your college paper back with as much complaints and still get an A.
        (Doesn't quite work like that, does it?)

        No offense, but you've no reason to respect him even more.

        That being said, the list of gripes is accurate and honest.
        However considering how much money corporations and worse yet, individuals, have to spend each year fixing Microsoft's mistakes (viruses, security) I don't have the luxury of forgivenes
      • by Jugalator (259273) on Thursday April 20, 2006 @05:01PM (#15168403) Journal
        People consistently bash Paul Thurrott on pro-Windows forums these days and I find that sad because I think he's one of few people left that write thorough, and actually rather unbiased, reviews of Microsoft products these days. Heck, with this review he even got an MS employee (that I'll avoid naming the username of to not point fingers) to call him a "douchebag" in a one-liner flamebait as an opinion about this entire article. Such non-existant motivation behind a flame can only come from one with little to defend himself with.
    • by ConceptJunkie (24823) on Thursday April 20, 2006 @04:26PM (#15168058) Homepage Journal
      I think the biggest problem with Vista is that it doesn't really give us anything new. Just mild improvements (or not based on your comment) to what's there now. From what I've read, it sounds like Windows NT 5.3... some performance improvements (much needed, but will they be overshadowed by the inevitable additional bloat?)... lots of eye candy (wild monkeys must have designed much of XP's look... I hope Vista isn't so hideous)... and improved security (something we've been promised, and were owed, for many years).

      I'm sorry. I don't see any compelling reason (or hardly any reason at all) to move from Windows 2000 or (for those couple of laptops of mine that have it) XP.

    • Introduces the new user security model similar to Un*x, only 30 years later. But it is (so far) incredibly inane in its interaction model with the user (from the article)

      IMHO it's isn't, NT had a unix-like security model (not exactly the same, but...)from the start. XP may created user accounts with administrator privileges by default, but the problem there is just a bad default, they could have changed it very easily in the vista code base or in a XP SP.

      The vista security model is different. I'm not sure o
      • IMHO it's isn't, NT had a unix-like security model (not exactly the same, but...)from the start. XP may created user accounts with administrator privileges by default, but the problem there is just a bad default, they could have changed it very easily in the vista code base or in a XP SP.

        The reason they use such a bad default is because a lot of programs require admin rights to run and your average user doesn't want to bother (or doesn't know how to) use the "runas" feature. In this regard, the security mod
    • by Aqua OS X (458522) on Thursday April 20, 2006 @05:10PM (#15168477)
      There are a few useful nitches for transparent windows, but applying them to system windows is a giant no-no.

      You'd think MS would learn from Apple's mistake... instead they took it to the next level of ridiculousness. When OS X first came out it was littered with transparent menus, menu bars, dialogs, etc. A lot of the elements have either been removed, or brought up to about 98% opacity. You might not even notice the transparency unless you really look closely.

      Drastic transparency looked -awesome- in marketing screen shots, and it was promoted as a way to know if content existed behind something such as a window bar. However, it was really annoying. Interface elements become difficult to distinguish and it hindered the speed in which it took to accomplish a task.

      But, at least MS gives users the option to turn this crap off. Apple never did that. Mac users needed to wait for Apple to slowly remedy the UI elements we were complaining about.
      • You'd think MS would learn from Apple's mistake... instead they took it to the next level of ridiculousness. When OS X first came out it was littered with transparent menus, menu bars, dialogs, etc. A lot of the elements have either been removed, or brought up to about 98% opacity. You might not even notice the transparency unless you really look closely.

        And what makes it worse for MS is that they have such a long release cycle. So people are going to be "stuck" with a bad GUI for many years. Of course, you
  • by thewiz (24994) * on Thursday April 20, 2006 @03:39PM (#15167608)
    'I don't hate Windows Vista, and I certainly don't hate Microsoft for disappointing me and countless other customers with a product that doesn't even come close to meeting its original promises. I'm sure the company learned something from this debacle, and hopefully it will be more open and honest about what it can and cannot do in the future ... It some ways, Windows Vista actually will exceed Mac OS X and Linux, but not to the depth we were promised. Instead, Windows Vista will do what so many other Windows releases have done, and simply offer consumers and business users a few major changes and many subtle or minor updates. That's not horrible. It's just not what was promised.'

    Hmmm... Sounds like something I've heard before from a sister-in-law:

    'I don't hate taking care of the kids, and I certainly don't hate my husband for disappointing me and the kids with his actions that don't even come close to meeting his original promises. I'm sure I learned something from this debacle, and hopefully he will be more open and honest about what he can and cannot do in the future ... In some ways, my husband actually will exceed other men, but not to the depth we were promised. Instead, he will do what so many other husbands have done, and simply promise us a few major changes and many subtle or minor ones. It's not so horrible that he misleads me and the kids. It's just not what I was promised at the alter.'

    Both sound like someone trying to apologize and explain away someone elses bad behaviour.
  • by jellomizer (103300) * on Thursday April 20, 2006 @03:40PM (#15167622)
    Heck I am still waiting for MS to give us what they promised us in Windows 95
    • Insightful (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) on Thursday April 20, 2006 @04:02PM (#15167832) Journal
      Actually, you are correct on this one. Win 95 was cobbled together from parts of the Cairo project that either fell apart. You can see exactly what cairo was supposed to be here [wikipedia.org] Ironically, enough the part that still hasn't been introduced is Winfs. Yes that's right winfs is over tweleve years late.
      • Re:Insightful (Score:3, Insightful)

        by IvyKing (732111)
        The OP (or GP...) was both funny and insightful.

        The Cairo prject was M$'s attempt to finsih killing off OS/2 and kill off the various desktop UNIX distro's (HP had a nice candidate with the 900/712 with Lotus 123 and Ami-Pro running natively on HP-UX). Kind of thinking that the WinFS idea is like speech recognition (or Duke Nukem Forever) - remember reading Jerry Pournelle quoting Bill Godbout about the 80286 will be powerfull enough for speech recognition, this was ca 1982.

      • by telbij (465356) on Thursday April 20, 2006 @06:28PM (#15169065)
        Ironically, enough the part that still hasn't been introduced is Winfs.

        Far be it from me to be a grammar nazi, but even so I gotta say:

        "Worst... Comma... Placement... EVER!"
      • Re:Insightful (Score:3, Interesting)

        by tmasssey (546878)
        We're *still* waiting for most of Cairo. Cairo was in answer to OS/2 and IBM/Apple/Taligent's Pink. Between the Workplace Shell and SOM, OS/2 was a decently object-oriented operating system, and Pink was supposed to be "even better". To prevent people from going in that direction, Microsoft talked up Cairo, the fully object-oriented OS built on the NT framework.

        At the time (1993), there was talk of the fabled database-based file system that would revolutionize file storage. This was going to be integr

    • by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Thursday April 20, 2006 @04:09PM (#15167891) Homepage

      You're right. The quote shows the author to be naive/uninformed:

      I don't hate Windows Vista, and I certainly don't hate Microsoft for disappointing me and countless other customers with a product that doesn't even come close to meeting its original promises. I'm sure the company learned something from this debacle, and hopefully it will be more open and honest about what it can and cannot do in the future

      This has always been Microsoft's MO. Late and with most of the intended features dropped out. They promise the world when they start development, but the new versions of their software tend to be the old version with a few tweaks, updates, fixes, a new skin, and all the controls in different places.

      • by killjoe (766577)
        I don't see how any of this matters at all. MS could deliver a steaming pile of shit and everybody who bought a new PC would get it anyway whether they liked it or not. In two years all corporations would also be running it too.

        It doesn't matter what MS delivers or doesn't deliver. That's the beauty of a monopoly. You have to eat whatever comes out of their bowels.
    • And what is that? The only think they promised was more networking ... and THEY DID IT - with all their products they let the whole world network in your machine :)
  • PSSSSST!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by goldspider (445116) <ardrake79NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday April 20, 2006 @03:41PM (#15167634) Homepage
    It's not done yet!
  • by clevershark (130296) on Thursday April 20, 2006 @03:43PM (#15167649) Homepage
    It's hard to trust the reviewer when he writes about how disappointed he is, but still gives the product 5/5.
  • by MarkByers (770551) on Thursday April 20, 2006 @03:45PM (#15167676) Homepage Journal
    It doesn't matter if Vista is good, bad or indifferent, it will get installed on millions of new machines and eventually the majority of users around the world will be using it. You better get used to it, because you will probably have to use it one day.
    • by robogun (466062)
      I can't speak for everybody, but I'm still on Windows 2000. I "upgrade" any XP machines I end up with to Win2K, and I've done this service for several friends and family.

      I think XP is gross and from what I hear about Vista so far, count me out. Especially if it includes *any* DRM.
    • by clevershark (130296) on Thursday April 20, 2006 @03:59PM (#15167808) Homepage
      A place I used to work for (very large bank) was using NT 4 as recently as 2004.

      Then they relented and let *some people* install Windows 2000 on their machines, if it was determined that they really needed it. That's not an uncommon practice with very large companies. All the PCs we had had license stickers for more recent versions of Windows, but we still had an OS which had been released back in 1996.

      I've nothing against using Windows, as long as someone pays me for it...
    • Not this time for me...while Microsoft has been practicing their perpetually delayed rollout approach to OS upgrades, I have been getting ready to switch to Linux for good. I (that is, linux developers) have almost all of the issues worked out and as soon as I can get complete driver support out of the box (so to speak) for my existing hardware in either Ubuntu or SUSE, I'll be using Linux exclusively. Yee-haw.
    • by slashname3 (739398) on Thursday April 20, 2006 @04:24PM (#15168033)
      From what has been described so far there does not appear to be any major features that will get the corporate world to jump on the upgrade bandwagon for Vista. If anything there are features that will cost a lot to use if you do upgrade. Many many companies will opt to continue to use XP for most of their systems for some time to come. Unless Microsoft can give corporate users a solid business reason to spend millions upgrading there won't be as big an uptake as Microsoft is hoping. The product has been delayed repeatedly, features have been cut, and there are viable alternatives available. As another writer wrote in another thread the reasons for the delay may be due to the software assurance deals they managed to get many many corporate users to sign up for a few years ago. Now that they have delayed the release of Vista long enough for those contracts to expire they can release the new version and charge those companies again. If they fall for it a second time shame on them. They deserve to through away that money on something that is not going to provide any real benefit to the end users. Eye candy is not a valid business reason to upgrade OS and hardware.

      Most likely the biggest market for Vista will be cosumers buying new systems from the likes of Dell or HP which will bundle the new Vista OS with the hardware. They won't have a choice. Unless those vendors continue to sell lower priced systems with XP and reserve Vista for the high end systems which are apparently is needed to see all the eye candy.
      • I have to agree with this right here, some of the large clients I work with are just getting around to this newfangled "XP" nonsense, *if* Vista proves itself useful to the business world it won't be on those machines for anywhere from 3 to 5 years (hopefully, at least) and even then who's to say it won't get leapfrogged by more business capable OSs.

        As another poster mentioned Vista won't make an appearance on any of my home rigs for some time (if at all), it reminds me of the Windows ME release; over-hyped
  • by plover (150551) * on Thursday April 20, 2006 @03:46PM (#15167686) Homepage Journal
    Frankly, I don't want to get excited about Vista.

    Since they're building DRM right into the core of the OS (including crap such as the Protected Media Path and all its ilk) I have absolutely no reason to think they won't allow corporate partners (RIAA, MPAA, BSA) to abuse this to kill pieces of "unapproved" media or "rogue" apps. What happens when the .*AA tells them Azureus is being used to pirate software or media? Shut 'er down! Even if you've only ever used it to share the latest fad video or big open source distribution, it won't matter. And that's wrong.

    Whether I agree with them on issues of piracy or not (I don't approve of pirating software myself) I refuse to allow my computer to participate in extending or enforcing their policies, and I refuse to install DRM based media players. I'm going to keep XP on that machine for as long as it runs, or until I replace it with an open OS.

  • by cgreuter (82182) on Thursday April 20, 2006 @03:46PM (#15167690)

    Can anyone here name any Microsoft product that lived up to its hype? Anyone?

    And no, Freecell doesn't count.

  • Filesystem (Score:3, Interesting)

    by thebdj (768618) on Thursday April 20, 2006 @03:47PM (#15167697) Journal
    I lost all interest in Vista the second they dropped the idea of WinFS. You see they were finally going to catch up with everyone else in the world of the file system and instead have proven they couldn't handle it. I think I also got fed up with all those pesky delays. Two years late and really chopped down, Vista is not anything like what is was supposed to be.
    • Re:Filesystem (Score:3, Insightful)

      by realmolo (574068)
      "Catch up"? What other operating system in widespread use has an SQL-based filesystem?

      Yeah, WinFS would and *will* be nice, but it's not a deal-breaker.

      I'm more concerned that Vista is yet-another-version-of-Windows NT. I honestly would like MS to risk it all and make a brand-new version of Windows, written from scratch, that only runs "old" stuff under emulation. Just start over. It'll never happen, of course.
  • by Kohath (38547) on Thursday April 20, 2006 @03:47PM (#15167698)
    This just in:

    A product's performance doesn't live up to the hype.

    I know we're all shocked that he unthinkable finally happened.
  • by mrchaotica (681592) on Thursday April 20, 2006 @03:47PM (#15167699)
    As I've noted in the past, the Windows Division retains, as employees of the software giant have told me, the last vestiges of the bad, old Microsoft. This is the Microsoft that ran roughshod over competitors in order to gain market share at any cost. The Microsoft that forgot about customers in its blind zeal to harm competitors.
    He talks about it as if they've changed, but Microsoft is the same as it ever was -- and it always will be, because the core of those "bad" ways is the upper management, including Gates and Ballmer themselves.
  • by VAXGeek (3443) on Thursday April 20, 2006 @03:49PM (#15167713) Homepage
    I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Vista fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Windows Vista PC (Pentium 4/3000 w/64 bits of power) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than Windows Vista, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

    In addition, during this file transfer, Firefox will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even Windows Media Player 11 is straining to keep up as I type this.

    I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Vista PCs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Vista machine that has run faster than its XP counterpart, despite the translucent interface. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 3000 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Vista is a superior operating system.

    Vista addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use Windows Vista over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
  • by bogie (31020) on Thursday April 20, 2006 @03:50PM (#15167729) Journal
    Watch this video

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-413444611 2378047444&q=Motorrider&pl=true [google.com]

    I've always been of fan of each OS borrowing from one another, but this is just sad. MS ripped everything out of Vista that was truly innovative and we are left with XP rethemed and few nice subsystem tweaks. Frankly Vista is a decent update if it had be released in 2003. WTF have they been doing for 6 years?
  • by kaan (88626) on Thursday April 20, 2006 @03:50PM (#15167733)
    "In some ways, Windows Vista actually will exceed Mac OS X and Linux..."

    For example, with Windows Vista, you will get more:
    - system instability
    - viruses
    - application crashes
    - lost data
    - maintenance time
    - security patches
    - bug fixes

    But it doesn't stop there! In order to take advantage of all new features in Vista, you will also get to spend more money on fancy hardware, including juiced up graphics cards to render the fancy new user interface.
  • Warmed over MacOSX (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MCSEBear (907831) on Thursday April 20, 2006 @03:53PM (#15167754)
    Microsoft's grand plans for Vista have turned into a warmed over version of MacOSX. The new graphics engine is definitely lifted right out of Apple's OS. The advanced WinFS filesystem has been reduced to nothing new with a copy of Apple's Spotlight bolted on. Microsoft's User Account Protection is so annoying as to be pretty much useless. It kicks in when you delete a shortcut to a program? Are they nuts? Paul Thurrott lets Microsoft have it with both guns in his review.

    "Promises were made. Excitement was generated. None of it, as it turns out, was worth a damn. From a technical standpoint, the version of Windows Vista we will receive is a sad shell of its former self, a shadow. One might still call it a major Windows release. I will, for various reasons. The kernel was rewritten. The graphics subsystem is substantially improved, if a little obviously modeled after that in Mac OS X. Heck, half of the features of Windows Vista seem to have been lifted from Apple's marketing materials.

    Shame on you, Microsoft. Shame on you, but not just for not doing better. We expect you to copy Apple, just as Apple (and Linux) in its turn copies you. But we do not and should not expect to be promised the world, only to be given a warmed over copy of Mac OS X Tiger in return. Windows Vista is a disappointment. There is no way to sugarcoat that very real truth."

    Microsoft has really fumbled the ball over and over with the development of this OS. It's nice to see them get called out for it.
  • by pegr (46683) on Thursday April 20, 2006 @03:53PM (#15167757) Homepage Journal
    Microsoft has pretty much done all that they can do with an OS, so why bother, apart from keeping business users on the upgrade train. Don't agree? Then tell me what apps run on XP that don't run on Win2K. I can't think of any.

    You think MS can rewrite the API with each release? ISVs want a consistent platform. If MS releases an OS that can't run software for previous OS versions, no one would buy it. The only reason for new OS releases is to keep siphoning money in exchange for "current version support". The whole idea is bogus and designed to maximize profit. The last thing MS considers is what is good for their customers.
  • by zapf (119998) on Thursday April 20, 2006 @03:57PM (#15167799)
    • Most Windows users won't even know what Microsoft was promising two and a half years ago. They'll be happy with their shiny new glass windows and amazing alt-tab feature. Vista is ultimately going to be successful, despite the glaring development problems it's has had.
    • What Microsoft should really be concerned about is the poor current implementation of the User Account Protection feature. It is really annoying as is, and there's a night and day usability difference between it and OS X's implementation. This is something that regular end users will actually notice and complain about.
    • A deeper problem is interface consistency. Thurrott points out how Microsoft has basically turned into what it once despised: a reactive bureaucracy in the model of IBM in the 70's. This is really reflected in the current builds of Vista-- the interface is incredibly inconsistent compared to OS X, Gnome, or Windows 2000. It feels like twnety different teams worked on fourty different things without any real coordination or a common set of user interface guidelines.
    • by dbc001 (541033) on Thursday April 20, 2006 @09:21PM (#15169940)
      Interface Consistency = Business Model
      How does Microsoft make money? 1. Selling software. 2. Selling Books for that software. 3. Selling Certifications.
      So what happens after everyone who is going to buy an OS, Book, & Cert has bought them all? What does Microsoft do? They announce that the old stuff is no longer supported, everyone has to buy the new stuff now! Then the mayhem starts. Applications slowly begin to break. Interfaces are no longer "flashy" or "in style". Then it hits the mainstream. "You don't have the new version yet? Wow, that OS is like 6 years old. You must not be on top of the IT world after all." Adoption hits critical mass, consumers start to flock to the new software. Now even the hard-core techies have to learn the bullshit new interfaces, programming languages, etc.

      Point is, Microsoft's business model relies on breaking things. They can't sell the new stuff until they break the old. This is why Microsoft is dangerous to business on the whole.
  • Leopard (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Diordna (815458) on Thursday April 20, 2006 @04:03PM (#15167840) Homepage
    The funny thing here is that Apple is going to get OS X 10.5 out the door soon after Vista is out. So if Vista will be a "warmed-up version of OS X Tiger," Apple certainly isn't going to let Leopard be the same. This is a great opportunity for MS mockage by Apple marketing.
  • by Captain Rotundo (165816) on Thursday April 20, 2006 @04:29PM (#15168081) Homepage
    I am not very familiar with this guy, as I dont ussually read microsoft press, but how can he link to a dialog like this: http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista_5 342_rev5_00.jpg [winsupersite.com] (it says 'You dont currently have permission to delete this file." and then offers the choices "Continue", "Skip", and "Cancel") - and not point out what a total usibility disaster it is? How can a company like microsoft in today's world put up something that abnoxious and unusable?

    In case you don't get it its making a decarative statement and then presenting options that have no correlation to the statement, I'm a professional in computers, and have been using them for well over 15 years and couldn't possibly even guess what each of those options should do. Continue what? if I dont have permission to do it how can I continue. Cancel what exactly?, as far as I can tell it just said it wasn't going to do anything anyway. Skip? skip the delete I was just told I can't do? I am baffled... based on the article I guess that it should have said something like "You currently don't have permission to delete this file, what would you like to do?" and given choices like "Grant Permission", "Don't Delete" etc...

    I haven't really used windows extensively in a very long time so maybe if I did I would be used to figuring out these obscure dialogues, but I don't think I would ever stop cringing when I saw them. It reminds me of the dialog windows used to put up when you went to access help for the first time in an app, it would ask how big the search database should be (or something) and give you three choices similar to "small (recommended)" "medium" "large" and no other info, not even a clue as to how this would effect your help at all. do they still do that nonsense?
  • by Locke2005 (849178) on Thursday April 20, 2006 @07:03PM (#15169272)
    Imagine how poor Melinda Gates felt on her honeymoon, when she discovered what Bill had been promising her for years was going to be "the greatest thing ever" could be summed up in two words -- "micro" and "soft".
  • by Warlock7 (531656) on Thursday April 20, 2006 @08:40PM (#15169761)
    How Microsoft, a software company, can develop such crappy software while Apple, arguably a hardware company, can develop such good software.

    Even more interesting is that half of the features missing from the stripped down version of Vista are already in Apple's OS X and have been for about a year now. And Leopard is right around the corner.

    Keep up the good work Bill & company.
  • by Enrique1218 (603187) on Thursday April 20, 2006 @11:52PM (#15170608) Journal
    The true victim of the Microsoft monopoly is Microsoft. I could see the writing on the wall with Windows ME. Microsoft was no longer the underdog but the standard, so there was little incentive to get features right. Windows XP was an improvement but fast forward 5 years later and we know it had (has) major issues. But again, it seemed that Microsoft was more interested in milking its monopoly than getting it right. Now Vista is on the horizon, will they finally get it right? I don't believe so. The broken promises section seems to illustrate that Microsoft bit off more than they could chew. They had to copy OSX but they had to completely outdo Apple. That was the problem beacause while Apple was improving the OS in little jumps, Microsoft engineers were throwing away months of coding to start over. Now, OSX will be pretty close to Vista when it comes and they may have to move Vista out to show something for their years of work (what is the bug-o-meter going to read for Vista). Also, I think the bloated system requirements was for the sake of OEMs selling more expensive PCs than providing the user with innovation. I am glad I move off of Windows when I did because this is silly. Apple, being the underdog, has good incentive to get it right.

Help stamp out Mickey-Mouse computer interfaces -- Menus are for Restaurants!

Working...