Is Microsoft Improving Its Image? 746
nk497 writes "Writer makes the case that Windows 7 is a turning point for Microsoft, and we all might start liking them soon ...
'While it's not winning everyone over, there are real signs that Microsoft has taken criticisms on board where it matters most: in the software and services that it provides. The idea of a faster, slimmer Windows is one that most Vista owners would automatically put on their wishlist, and it seems that Microsoft has genuinely done something about it. It's not just reignited interest in the Windows product line, but it's got users appreciating a fresh approach from Microsoft as well.'"
Duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows XP = lean
Windows Vista = fat
Windows 7 = leaner than Vista = Windows XP
Or so people keep saying (about XP and Vista).
Back to square one?
New! with 50% less stink! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, it's funny, maybe 5 or 6 years ago it would've been:
Windows 2000 = lean
Windows XP = bloated
just a pig with lipstick (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably more along the lines... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost every operating system has gone through this. All the Linux distributions are "bloated" compared with what we had several years ago. The latest Mac OS X is bloated compared with the prior ones. It happens when you keep adding more and more.
Re:Duh (Score:2, Insightful)
Windows XP = lean Windows Vista = fat Windows 7 = leaner than Vista = Windows XP
Or so people keep saying (about XP and Vista).
Back to square one?
Uh, no.
NT = lean
2000 = Average
XP = Overweight
Vista = Obese
At least they've been consistent though!
Ugh...
In other news (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps. I've also heard that Cheney being wheeled around in a wheel chair makes him more likable. And somebody said that Lindsy Lohan's new hairdo made her look smarter.
I guess only time will tell if any of these pan out.
--MarkusQ
Excited about a new OS release? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is Slashdot Improving its Image? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow an article on Slashdot that doesn't say Microsoft is a total failure at everything it does. For a second I thought Slashdot was the one starting to change, but then I read the replies...
Re:Duh (Score:2, Insightful)
Still, Windows Vista has much more features than WinXP
Only to some (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft donates to Apache [sdtimes.com] ...and of course, the "Windows 7 might actually be rather good" article in TFA.
Microsoft donates to moonlight [slashdot.org]
Microsoft supports ODF [infoworld.com]
IE to be standards compliant by default [arstechnica.com]
Microsoft assist SAMBA team with interop [infoworld.com]
Maybe; just maybe, Microsoft isn't the evil machine some slashdotters make out.
A little early, isn't it? (Score:5, Insightful)
WOLF! WOLF!
Maybe we should wait until, you know, Windows 7 actually comes out to find if it's the best thing since sliced bread or the worst thing since Gitmo. Vista was supposed to be the awesome super duper OS everyone would love that would make everyone want to give Ballmer hugs for, but it turned out to (from what I read) be a stinking pile of dogshit.
Frankly, given their history at Microsoft, I have no doubt to give them the benefit of. They're going to have to deliver a slim, fast, stable OS and I'll actually have to try it before I believe a word of it.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Microsoft is going to have to prove itself.
Re:Duh (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is: Windows 7 != leaner than Vista.
It only feels that way because they cleaned a few things up.
Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
All the Linux distributions are "bloated" compared with what we had several years ago.
But we can uninstall the bloat.
Re:Duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Some more than others, but at least Linux is easy enough to pare down.
Perhaps technically, but there has also been extraordinary progress in optimization with succcessive OS X releases. If you have an older Mac, you'd almost always be better off running 10.3 or 10.4 than you would running 10.1 (which managed to be both feature-poor and hardware-intensive.)
Re:Perception and reality are two different things (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect that the relationship's probably more akin to the one Belkin had with their "reviewers".
Flexability.... (Score:2, Insightful)
When I see Windows 7 Live CDs like I see Ubuntu and other Linux live CDs then I will really think that Windows 7 is modular. That right there says to me that you can have as little or as much as you want.
Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, it's funny, maybe 5 or 6 years ago it would've been:
Windows 2000 = lean Windows XP = bloated
Well, yes - because XP has been around for so long, hardware has overtaken it.
The other thing was that many people (probably the majority) skipped Win2K and the upgrade was straight from 98/ME to XP, so the extra "bloat" was justified by the move from a Mickey Mouse DOS-descended operating system to something substantially more solid.
Actions speak louder than words (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No. Microsoft Goal is unchanged. (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyway, this model really isn't all that different than what you're doing now. You don't own software now, you own licenses. And you do own licenses with today's model, but in the end is how you use them so different than your vision? You buy your license for as long as that version of Windows is useful, then buy another. In terms of net cost, they aren't going to be able to get away with the end result costing much more than it does today.
Time limited licenses are already the way of business applications. Companies don't "arbitrarily" lose access to the tools. If they allow the license to expire, they can't use it anymore. It isn't like one day they suddenly have no access anymore.
And you say you prefer to own your data? No shit? Are you implying that somehow this new version of windows is going to steal your data and give you access only when it wants? Once again, if you want people to take you seriously.. quit making shit up.
Re:Perception and reality are two different things (Score:3, Insightful)
Although, compared to several years ago, I do find at more and more websites people fanboying for Microsoft. Which I find perplexing
Microsoft has been caught astroturfing on many, many occasions, across many product lines. It's not that perplexing.
Re:but (Score:2, Insightful)
But isn't Windows 7 just a service pack for Vista?
Of course it isn't. You can't cash billions from a service pack.
Re:No. Microsoft Goal is unchanged. (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft really isn't a monopoly anymore. It's easy for a home computer user to switch to a Mac or to get a Linux PC from Dell or HP. Also, it's easy for them to download and install OpenOffice.
So how exactly is Microsoft supposed to implement their software rental fantasy?
Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Chris Flores from the Windows Vista Team Blog said [windowsteamblog.com],
"One of our design goals for Windows 7 is that it will run on the recommended hardware we specified for Windows Vista and that the applications and devices that work with Windows Vista will be compatible with Windows 7."
So how exactly will Win7 fit on your Dell Mini 9? It won't, Microsoft just figures if they lie often enough there will be enough suckers who believe it.
New tag: writerwillwinalaptop (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:but (Score:5, Insightful)
that's a pretty clever ploy when you think about it. Vista is way too bloated for current machines, which has been a major hindrance to widespread adoption. but by waiting for consumer desktops to catch up to Vista's hardware requirements, they can appear to have developed a faster OS simply be re-releasing Vista under a different name with some slight UI modifications. and by the time Windows 7 is released it'll be as stable as an OS that's been out for 4-5 years.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
"Evil" often comes from being beyond consequences. And Microsoft had unassailable power it seemed for a while. But now you have Google and a resurgent Apple laying into them. Maybe MS have started to realise the benefits of good relations with their customer base and other players in the IT world, e.g. they're complying with standards.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Duh (Score:2, Insightful)
But is 10.3 and 10.4 being faster than 10.0 and 10.1 really an achievement? Early OS X releases, if we are to be fair, were crap. They shone only in comparison to OS 9, which was about on par with Windows 3.1. XP already had a good pedigree when it was released.
In a sense, Apple had nowhere to go but up, and Microsoft had nowhere to go but down.
Re:but (Score:5, Insightful)
But isn't Windows 7 just a service pack for Vista?
No. Service packs from Microsoft doesn't come with new features on the scale of new task bar systems, federating search to external data sources via OpenSearch, revised UAC, etc. Even the most extreme service pack thus far, Windows XP SP2, mostly focused just on security and a (too) simplistic firewall to solve urgent trojan problems.
Windows 7 could perhaps be called Windows Vista SE though, if the brand name wasn't as tainted. But I don't think MS would ever do a service pack release on this scale with touches throughout the OS, although many still minor. The normal SP from Microsoft is mostly just security fixes with under-the-hood changes like supporting new standards or hardware.
Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
it takes time... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Geeks only (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know. The "Vista sucks" theme really started spreading.
What has been interesting to me is the number of people who I encounter that say they bought a new computer, and while they thought Vista would suck, it's ended up being the most stable computer they've ever had.
Heading down the right path (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem with Vista was the minimum requirements. They allowed far too many PC's around the world that were using 2003 technology run Vista. The newest CPU's and higher memory machines with better Mobo did great with it (once the drivers all became available, of course).
This was exactly where we started with XP.
Want to improve your image? (Score:5, Insightful)
1: Remove all the Vista DRM crap out of Windows 7. It's my computer, not Hollywood's.
2: Interoperate better with Open Office and support their open standard in MSWord, not your own.
3: No more per processor licensing agreements. If we want Windows at purchase time we'll ask for it ourselves.
While there's more, get started on this list now!
Re:Heading down the right path (Score:5, Insightful)
> They want to design an OS that will be able to stick around and take full
> advantage of the CPU's and memory advances for several years (at least).
An OS doesn't have to be a bloated pig in order to make use of newer hardware.
Also keep in mind that there is nothing "new" about 2 and 4 CPU machines
and Gigabytes of physical memory. These have existed even among PCs for
a LONG time. It's just that now they are cheap enough to be in your
average bargain basement desktop PC.
What do we mean by bloat (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows XP = lean
Windows Vista = fat
Windows 7 = leaner than Vista = Windows XP
I must say that "bloat" is about the least information-laden phrase I hear bandied about :).
What's a consensus defintion of what it means? Wasteful use of RAM? Any additional use of RAM? Does hard drive space count? What if it's for optional non-RAM loaded stuff like templates?
Is is bloat for Vista to include a lot of printer drivers in the default image? It wasn't good for Netbooks with small SSD drives, but didn't impact system performance. And I remember lots of complaints about the full install size of Office back in the day, even though that was mainly templates that didn't need to be installed.
I think it'd be useful if we all were a little more specific about that.
Re:Uninstall what you don't want from Windows too (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay. Let's start with Internet Explorer.
Re:Only to some (Score:1, Insightful)
And we were always at war with Eurasia, too, right, comrade?
You're making the assumption that people WANT their media crippled by DRM, and that this is somehow natural and right. They don't, and it isn't. Sorry to break this to you. When you nix the DRM from the OS level (in addition to the growing tide against it in general), you tell the media publishers that maybe this isn't such a good idea after all, and the DRM-enabled files stop coming, which, in turn, benefits everyone.
Not to mention that leaving DRM capabilities gives a painful slowdown to normal file operations (i.e. copying), given it has to check each and every single file to make sure someone else didn't say you can't do something with it, so really, making it impossible to play DRM-enabled files isn't "the only thing you would be doing" by removing it entirely.
I'd go on, but I'm a busy person, and I've had enough fun feeding the obvious troll for today. Cheers!
Net Filter (Score:2, Insightful)
There's lots of behind-the-scenes work that's been done to improve performance, stability, and security.
Did NT have a software firewall?
It could have and should have, its not like ipchains took up a lot of resources.
Microsoft had more than enough money to hire the expertise to build a lean, high quality firewall into NT 3.5 . They chose not to.
"Weight" = irrelevant (Score:1, Insightful)
Emaciated, thin, lean, fat, obese, who cares?
Legacy compatibility was always the key issue. This is why people stuck with MS despite frustration with classic MS weaknesses. Very few people buy Windows because they like it. Quite a few buy it because they want to preserve a pre-existing investment or to maximize their compatibility with others in the same boat.
Without the legacy support, you might as well go out and get a Mac. Until Vista, each successive version of Windows offered the user the ability to use their old apps and hardware on the new version of Windows and in most cases they ran BETTER. Starting with Vista, many things did not run AT ALL.
When enough time has gone by, people will not care so much about legacy compatibility. Upgraded software and peripherals will eventually make XP irrelevant. Question is, what happens in the mean time? How many people are left to ponder a Windows 7 migration vs. those who have jumped ship entirely?
And the biggest question of all is Microsoft's ability to sell a product on its own merits instead of legacy support. They have not done this in the OS space since MS-DOS replaced CP/M.
Re:Heading down the right path (Score:3, Insightful)
Do they have more code than you need? Probably. But what you need and I need on the machine are different, and if they cut out some features, either one of us would be complaining about the features they left out.
Am I the only one... (Score:2, Insightful)
...that hasn't been hating Microsoft for the past couple years?
I mean, I like having to jump through hoops to get something simple to work in linux as much as the next guy (no sarcasm, this is /. after all.. who HASN'T spent a friday night recompiling software from source and swearing at the unavailability of required source libraries?), but sometimes it's just nice to "Click-click-click-done" of windows.
Sure, it may be buggy sometimes, is a target for viruses, isn't as fast or powerful as it should be, vista's a bloated pig, but I've got XP so it works and does what I tell it to, doesn't crash, runs everything I want natively, no fuss.
Office? Yeah, it sucks, trying too hard. SQL Server? S'ok. Exchange? Simple, works. IIS? Crap. Silverlight? Pass. Their X-Boxen? They f'cked up on the RROD issue, but working at correcting (C'mon baby, don't jinx it, keep bein' green!)
Am I the only one who isn't on with the hatred?
Re:No. Microsoft Goal is unchanged. (Score:5, Insightful)
Time limited licenses are already the way of business applications. Companies don't "arbitrarily" lose access to the tools. If they allow the license to expire, they can't use it anymore. It isn't like one day they suddenly have no access anymore.
Unless the permission update fails for some reason other than non-payment. This happened at the radio station I used to work for.
The software that created the daily schedule for all on-air events (called the "log" by the on-air staff) would not update and refused to allow us to create about 2 weeks worth of logs. The vendor had to fly in and do some voodo to restore everything. Meanwhile we had to go back to creating paper logs (photocopier, liquid paper, and typewriter) for a couple of weeks.
At the next contract renewal time, we told them where they could stuff their software, and moved to another vendor who didn't have time bombs built into their software.
And you say you prefer to own your data? No shit? Are you implying that somehow this new version of windows is going to steal your data and give you access only when it wants?
If the application that is locked to that proprietary file format won't let you in, you've lost access to your data. Isn't that functionally the same as not having that data any more?
Re:Duh (Score:3, Insightful)
The latest version of Mac OSX demonstrably runs acceptably on legacy hardware commonly available five years ago. I remember reading in slashdot that Vista "runs fine" on processors 3 Ghz and above. None of my systems are that fast.
Truth, an OS tends to accumulate bloat with each release. But there is bloat, and there is bloat. The situation is not one of "this is bloated and that is not". Microsoft is unquestionably the front runner in the bloat race, so much so that the requirements of the OS has outstripped what people are generally willing to purchase. The performance of the hardware commonly available on Fred and Ethyl's card table did finally catch up with XP, but it was clear that it wouldn't catch up with Vista in time. Or has even now. And I don't know about you, but it seemed to me that Microsoft was being pretty arrogant to assume that I would buy a brand new, cutting edge machine just to run Vista.
So I can see the panic to make 7 more efficient, and to sell Microsoft as less autocratic. But what we're all ignoring here is that Windows 7 has not been released yet. Vista looked fast in beta, too.
Re:Duh (Score:3, Insightful)
DSL 50MB install .... not bloated
Ubuntu default install is bloated but can be slimmed greatly .... ...XP/Vista/Winodws 7 bloated and cannot be slimmed down...
Re:Excited about a new OS release? (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, I think you just touched on the BIGGEST problem Microsoft has in today's marketplace.
They've mostly reached a point where they can't seem to excite people with what they're doing. It takes a massive effort for them to simply release something "stable/solid, yet boring".
I mean, the days are over when you had transitions like going from the all-text world of MS-DOS to a whole new paradigm, found in Windows 3.x. Or again, the huge jump from that to Windows '95. Those were big, ballsy changes to widely adopted standards that people generally were excited and eager to try out.
They really tried to drum up Vista as yet another huge change from the world of XP, but it just wasn't really there. And now, they're working hard just to make Windows 7 the product they hyped Vista up to be initially. So no matter how good 7 is? Many people will yawn, and say "About time!" or "Why aren't you giving me this thing free, since I got screwed over buying your last OS?"
The original article takes some shots at Apple, saying:
"Just look at the slickness of the Apple PR machine, an operation that has conveniently blinded the mass market to issues such as digital rights management, the heavy pursuit of websites that leak news early and a general level of control freakery that, if practiced by Microsoft, would cause major ructions."
I disagree. MS products have just as much DRM built into them. In fact, my experience with their DRM was far less pleasant than with Apple's - because they had a lot more glitches with theirs. (I remember having a Yahoo Music subscription, for example, where I had random weird issues with songs taking a LONG time to start playing. I never knew exactly when Windows Media Player would decide it needed to refresh its authorization token or whatever - and had delays getting what it wanted from the authorization server.)
Reality is, Apple still knows how to dazzle people with their product updates. Even when they borrow ideas that were already done elsewhere, they put polish on them and introduce them to people who would have NEVER seen the original efforts. They haven't made moves to alienate their customer base like "Product activation" either. THAT'S the difference, really.
As a long-time linux user/advocate? Absolutely. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is most certainly improving its image with Windows 7. They appear to be getting a lot of things right. They've improved system latency due to I/O over what was present in even XP, and the system is surprisingly stable (for a beta, of course).
Couple this with the fact that the Linux I/O scheduler appears to have moved away from a model which works well on the Linux desktop. For about the last year or so, Linux kernels have resulted in very latent desktop utility during even moderate burst-type I/O (programs/files loading, access of swap - not prologued disk writes). This may or may not be related to the bug supposedly introduced into the kernel in 2.6.18 - I don't know, I haven't personally tested it. But what I do know is that this behavior has become progressively more evident over the past 8 years: I blame the server-centric development focus in the kernel (2.2 and prior were blindingly responsive on the desktop).
With the fact that Linux desktop performance is somewhat lackluster these days giving it a perceived performance more on par with what Vista is capable of, I can see how it would sour people in preference for Windows 7, when Windows 7 appears to implement things properly - or, at least in a way which works to user expectations.
I should note that I've been personally using Linux (mostly Debian, some Ubuntu and OpenSuse) almost exclusively since around 2000. I don't make these criticisms lightly, and personally say it more as an admonishment of the Linux developers/community than I do as a proponent of W7. Whether it's a good product or not, I can not ethically approve of vendor lock in to the extent that MS software use encourages.
(Side note: has anyone noticed how W7's window effects/widgets (to the exception of the "MS-specific blurry/imperfect glass semi-transparent menus) looks shockingly like the bastard child of KDE 4 and OS X 10.5? I thought the first W7 screenshot I saw actually was KDE4 with a 'lookalike' theme.)
Re:Duh (Score:4, Insightful)
But is firefox eating up memory the OS's fault or the people who wrote firefox?
I see no signs of Win7 being a turn of any sort (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft has placed some serious burdens on users, developers and systems administrators with Windows Vista. They are completely unapologetic for it. People cling to their Windows XP CDs as they would to a life raft.
Microsoft responds with PR ads like "Mojave" completely forgetting that people are annoyed not only by the user interface, but also by the things they can't do or the fact that it takes more horsepower and/or capacity to perform at the same level they experienced with WinXP.
Windows 7 does not appear to address any of the concerns that people have with Windows Vista. If someone would be so kind, I would like to see some sort of list of changes between Windows Vista and Windows 7. Are hardware requirements lower? Are annoying UI issues addressed?
Don't get me wrong -- I really want to see Windows 7 resolve the problems of Vista because the future presently makes me a little uncomfortable. But when I see clever hackers repackaging Windows XP and Windows Vista into "lite" Windows distros that are remarkably small and remarkably fast, very compatible and capable, I have to wonder what Microsoft is most interested in? It has been demonstrated over and over again what is POSSIBLE and I am sure Microsoft is aware of it. So why aren't they?
We can speculate all day long and never arrive at the truth unless Microsoft acknowledges the truth. But terms like "defective by design" are well earned when it comes to Microsoft. They aren't doing what they could. One is forced to assume that they have motives for not making their Windows releases as fast as they could be. What those motives are, precisely, is where most of the speculation occurs. I think it is because Windows is used to prop up other activities; activities of Microsoft and of other parties such as big media interests.
Re:Uninstall what you don't want from Windows too (Score:3, Insightful)
"I may need features you don't, and rather than having to hunt for them online and download a virus posing as a function... "
Man, if only there was some way of handing out files from a central trusted repository and doing some sort of hashing to see that they're what they should be. We could call that system "apt".
Also, for linux, I could get Puppy linux, or even just the
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD [ubuntu.com]
But for the most part, most people agree that they'd like the system pre-loaded with software, hence the base distribution for most distros comes with goodies like Open Office.
That's rather the same as (Score:1, Insightful)
Saying "Is Windows 7 being better than Vista really an achievement? Vista was, to be fair, crap".
Except you don't get MS fans telling you you're talking shite.
What IS different is that 10.5 has a lot more in it that 10.1 and is faster too. Even if it were crap, a service pack would just have sped it up and not introduced some new things.
(whether these new things are worth paying for is another question)
Re:New! with 50% less stink! (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been wondering how much Windows 7 would tone down the DRM that they keep deliberately conflating with security-- when they say anything at all about it. As far as I've seen, they aren't dropping Windows Genuine Advantage and they still aren't being entirely forthcoming in acknowledging that WGA is totally unnecessary for usability even if they did back away from claiming it was a vital security update. Liars. And Windows 7 uses Vista drivers not XP drivers because it requires the DRM disfunctionality. In other words, no change from Vista. How much faster could Windows be if they stop wasting cycles checking whether you're pirating? For me, the DRM would be question #1 on the FAQ about Windows 7, and they ignore or weasel around the issue. I just don't trust MS.
We've fallen down ourselves. Remember the big stink over each Pentium III having a unique number and the concerns over privacy? Intel backed off on that one. And the flap over XP phoning home when 2000 did no such thing? MS didn't back down, and has only made things worse, with WGA next, and then Vista. The almighty consumer could have squelched that if they'd yelled louder and walked when bitten. There has been some of that, but evidently not enough. MS is like a pit bull owner variously putting on an oblivious act or laughably extolling false virtues in defense of their dogs.
For most people Microsoft doesn't have an image (Score:5, Insightful)
In my heart I am still a software developer, a hardcore IT guy and a Linux advocate... In 30 years I worked for 5 start ups blah blah blah. Lots of hardcore techy cred if I want to pull it.
But, now days I make most of my income as a teacher and I make most of that teaching money teaching basic computer literacy and MS Office to people on the wrong side of the digital divide. These are not stupid people, they are not old people, most are under 25 but some are as old as 65. All are high school graduates and some have college degrees. They just don't know much about how to use a computer. They never learned and they don't care about anything but getting their job done.
I dare say that they represent a fairly large percentage of todays population.
You know what? While most of them (not all) have heard of Microsoft, they have no strong opinion of the company one way or the the other. To them windows are something that you open when you want fresh air and for some weird reason is also what makes using a computer hard or easy (depends on the person). If they know the difference between XP and Vista it is because they learned a little about using a computer with XP and then bought a computer with Vista and they are pissed because the it is different from the one they learn on. (OTOH, there is a small percentage who stumbled upon Vista and love it.)
They don't buy any thing from MS. What they have from MS came on the computer. In most cases the only software they ever buy are games and mostly they buy games for their consoles. They down load games for PCs because they can, and as one student so bluntly put it "How can it be illegal when it is so easy?"
What I am trying to say is that for the people I teach Microsoft is like the road they drive to work. They only notice it when there is a problem with it. When there is a problem, they don't blame MS, if anything they blame the company who made the computer. From their point of view rebooting windows is just like driving around a chuckhole or getting stuck in traffic. It happens, shit happens, the live with it. They don't even think about the possibility that it shouldn't happen, because it has always happened.
They do not have an opinion about MS. They don't see MS. They don't buy from MS.
Microsoft has become like the air in a big city, you only complain about it when you can see it. And, Microsoft has taken great care to make sure they are not seen, they are just there, like transparent but polluted air.
Out side of IT and the small number of IT enthusiasts in the world, nobody has an opinion about MS.
Stonewolf
Viral marketing (Score:4, Insightful)
Clearly this time around Microsoft is taking the proper approach to Marketing and starting a Viral Marketing campaign early enough to, in the minds of the consumers, build a positive image for their new OS before the cold shower of reality start pouring down.
I especially like the part where they keep comparing Windows 7 with Windows Vista (which is crap) instead of comparing it with Windows XP (the last good OS they made) - great way to nudge the online reviews and opinions to use an absurdly low basis of comparison AND get the suckers^H^H^H^H experimentalists that bought Windows Vista to upgrade again.
To however is behind this Marketing campaign: I salute you!
Re:Uninstall what you don't want from Windows too (Score:2, Insightful)
So what you're saying is, you agree with the OP and you can't remove IE from Windows without seriously damaging other components.
Re:No. Microsoft Goal is unchanged. (Score:3, Insightful)
Retail EULA's mean absolutely nothing in the US, evidence by the fact that NO vendor has even attempted to enforce them through the courts. You buy a sealed product, and somewhere hidden inside is a slip of paper saying that you agree to something or other by virtue of having purchased the product. Well, screw that. There was a contract entered into when I bought the product, covered by UCITA, and that contract doesn't mention terms hidden in a box somewhere. You can print whatever you like on it. I'm not listening.
Re:Uninstall what you don't want from Windows too (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Uninstall what you don't want from Windows too (Score:3, Insightful)
There is the option to uninstall or never install a lot of the little features in Windows. You can also quite easily disable many of the devices. If you can figure out how to do that with Linux, it's even easier in Windows. Bloat or not, we still have the ability to turn off or get rid of a lot of the things you don't want.
I don't really buy this anymore. I've done numerous XP installs; and usually the first thing I do, prior to even connecting to the net, is uninstall a lot of crap - especially Outlook, but some of MS's other "value added" stuff as well. Yet when I run autoupdate later, I still am repeatedly being fed updates for various components of Outlook and those other pieces of Windows that supposedly have been removed - they're listed by name in the updates. So either Windows only removes the cosmetic parts of these "features", leaving most of the bloat intact; or else its updater is dumber than what's available on OS X or most Linux distros.
Re:Duh (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't care if Firefox uses a lot of memory. It's an application. I want my applications to use memory, as much as they need. I'm not complaining about memory usage with regard to apps; just pointing out that that is how much it uses, and therefore that's at least how much I'd like to have left over when the OS is done allocating memory for its processes.
Again, my point is that Windows XP -- JUST THE OS -- has gone from using 256MB (which if I want to tweak I could strip down to around 160MB if I really wanted) to using around 512MB.
That, objectively, is bloat. Irrespective of anything to do with any apps.
BUT if I want to use an app that happens to like to use about 300MB of RAM when I use it the way I want to use it, I end up needing to recommend 1024MB of memory so as to avoid swapping. Systems I built in 2002, at which time I only saw a need to load with 512MB of RAM, are no longer adequate.
They *do* run pretty much OK if I upgrade them to 1GB of RAM, though. Not as fast as a present-day dual core build, of course, but reasonably well even on an Athlon XP 1800+ system, once I bump the memory up to 1GB or more.
Re:Only to some (Score:3, Insightful)
If reduced playback support is your issue, you should not be satisfied with Windows Media player as Microsoft ships with Windows [inglorion.net], either.
Also, there is no need to turn the OS upside down to allow playing DRMed content. In the end, the bytes are there, you just have to figure out how to decode them. A regular program is enough to actually do the decoding once you know how.
Re:Duh (Score:3, Insightful)
For what it does, Windows XP is much leaner memory wise than a functionally equivalent linux distribution. Something with drivers, 3D acceleration, etc.
Is there a Linux istro comparablto Windows XP? You'd have to remove essentially everything except a text editor that feels like it was written in the 80s and Solitaire...
Re:*sigh* - checked that link (Score:2, Insightful)
In other news: in Windows 7, "the Windows Security Center has been renamed the Windows Action Center". Innovation at its finest! (To be fair, "a new font, 'Gabriola', is included." Now THAT's something.)
Re:Uninstall what you don't want from Windows too (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah no one uses Linux. Yahoo (ok fine BSD), Slashdot, Google, and so on all dont use Linux.
Its a tiny target and no one would bother writing a virus for it because they wouldnt be able to harness millions of fast servers with plenty of resources and fast internet connections.
Any idiot can write a virus for Linux but who would bother?