Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Business 2.0 Says 'Boycott Vista' 756

amyandjake writes "Business 2.0 has a story about Vista's delays, the amount of time wasted by Microsoft bringing Vista to market, and the fact that it doesn't seem to have any compelling features for upgrading. The last paragraph of the story says 'Boycott Vista. Keep your old Windows XP PC around. Don't buy a new one. That's the only way we have to let Microsoft know Vista is an overhyped, late, and pointless update to XP — a perfectly fine operating system.'" Relatedly, torrensmith writes "Paul Thurrott is at it again with his seemingly never-ending supply of information about Windows Vista. This time, he discusses the things he dislikes about the program, in the article The Dark Side of Windows Vista RC1."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Business 2.0 Says 'Boycott Vista'

Comments Filter:
  • by yagu ( 721525 ) * <yayagu AT gmail DOT com> on Friday September 08, 2006 @02:47PM (#16068085) Journal

    Is the decree of consent over? In Paul Thurrott's article, aside from the refreshing observation Mr. Thurrott is willing to critique as well as fawn, I find it notable he picks one example where MS has been inconsistent and stupid (I agree) with their navigation ergonomics.

    From his article [], it's pretty clear MS is shipping a DVD maker, and from just one screen it appears to be a video/other type of application. Is this now considered de rigeur intrinsic Operating System? I know the definition of OS has blurred and been trickier to pin down, and I would expect an OS to have the appropriate drivers to allow burning of a DVD (it is after all, a component of the OS, or at least drivers for a DVD burner are).

    If I were ROXIO or NERO, I'd be pissed, this looks like a de facto and direct competitor product, and if it's bundled as "part of the OS", it would seem close to the line of leveraging again.

    And later in Thurrott's article he mentions the builtin virus checking -- something previously discussed on slashdot -- this also seems like another market niche MS is conveniently incorporating as part of their OS.... (how about making an OS much less susceptible to this in the first place?).

    Is MS free to do this now?

    As for boycotting Vista, I wish the world would consider, but it won't. And, I'll have to have some Vista machine and exposure to continue to pretend to support friends and family. Everything I've read about Vista bolsters the view there is not much new worth the upgrade, and there's enough annoying to induce a ferocious case of buyer's remorse.

    • by BootNinja ( 743040 ) <mack,mcneely&gmail,com> on Friday September 08, 2006 @02:53PM (#16068126) Homepage
      If they're encorporating DVD burning software into vista, they're probably doing it the same way that XP introduced CD burning. They licensed the software from Roxio. Roxio probably has absolutely no problem with getting some money everytime somebody buys a copy of Windows.
    • I think the major point being made is that there is no compelling reason to upgrade - especially in light of the fact that you will most likely need to invest in additional hardware such as a new video card, memory, etc. That pushes the cost of vista close to that of a brand new machine with an OEM version of Windows (not to mention the fact that upgrading system components is beyond the ability of many users. Heck - they have enough problems just hooking a printer up!)

      I have no problems with an OS providin
      • by RevDobbs ( 313888 ) * on Friday September 08, 2006 @03:20PM (#16068326) Homepage

        I think you hit the nail on the head: the article is about not upgrading every PC in your 50-office company, and is not about not buying new PCs.

        The author states that there is no compelling reason to purchase an upgrade, and I'd have to agree. What makes Vista better than XP besides more eye candy and sane default security settings? Any competent power user should have the sense to not be logging into their desktop as an admin, and production installations by big companies (should) already have their end-users' PCs locked down to prevent lusers from hurting themselves.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by suv4x4 ( 956391 )
          Any competent power user should have the sense to not be logging into their desktop as an admin

          Any competent power user realizes there's close to no software that works in anything but admin mode. Of course Notepad works both ways, and power users only use this to produce them fangled 3D animations and interweb sites.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by gutnor ( 872759 )
            The dark age you are talking about where Windows NT 4.0/2000 times. It was essentially because the majority of development ( especially "consumer" development ) were made for Windows 95/98/Me. Most applications not specifically designed for NT/2K required some sort of tweaking.
            Yet, even at the time, a lot of companies with a semi decent sysadmin were able to make everything work for the end-user, in normal user mode.

            Since Windows XP, the vast majority of major products works perfectly fine in normal user ac
    • by carpeweb ( 949895 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @03:24PM (#16068355) Journal
      OK, I get that it's bundling; and I get why that's "bad".

      But, isn't burning a CD or DVD essentially I/O? (OK, maybe just O.) IANASA, but that sounds a lot like a basic OS function to me. Yeah, I know it's a direct competitor to existing "products". Existing products that exist because a basic OS function was ... overlooked?

      I'm trying not to be a smart-ass about this (but I was never very good at restraint). So, is it ok for MS to bundle basic OS functions with their OS?
  • How dare you refuse to pay The Tax! You must upgrade immediately or you will be summarily terminated. It is not up to you to decide.

  • OK... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 08, 2006 @02:50PM (#16068106)
    they had me right until the point where they say "XP is a perfectly fine operating system".
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by ohearn ( 969704 )
      XP is a perfectly fine operating system. I haven't had any of my boxes crash in years (including my XP box or my wife's XP box). The only crash of a machine I have had in the past several years was my laptop overheating when the fan had to be replaced and that was a hardware failure. For what most people use a computer for Windows does just fine. Do I wish it was cheaper?, YES. Windows tends to have much better product support than other platforms most of the time, finding drivers is not an issue like
      • Re:OK... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Wingsy ( 761354 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @03:17PM (#16068307)
        "... as long as you have a user smart enough to avoid the majority or viruses and spyware XP doesn't crash very often."

        Couldn't have said it better myself.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by NatasRevol ( 731260 )
          And what a perfect place to point out that the VAST majority of Windowsusers don't have the technical smarts to address or fix the issues related to viruses & spyware. And apparently the maker of the OS doesn't either. Hence the reason there are still cottage industries that support fixing these issues. Industries!
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jimicus ( 737525 )
        and as long as you have a user smart enough to avoid the majority or viruses and spyware XP doesn't crash very often.

        You also need to avoid dodgy hardware. USB network adapters are an excellent example of hardware which tends to be flaky.

        Tell me, why does the driver for a USB network adapter need to sit at a point in the OS where it can bing the whole thing crashing to the ground? (Not that Linux is any better in that regard, but if Windows is so much "better"...)
      • Re:OK... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by PintoPiman ( 648009 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @06:56PM (#16069615)
        XP is a perfectly fine operating system. I haven't had any of my boxes crash...

        Statements like this really do suggest the negative effect that Microsoft has had on computing. Users now are "perfectly" satisfied if their OS doesn't routinely crash. What should be a basic assumption has become a lauded feat.

        My linux and mac installs don't crash either. Nor do they have a spyware virus problem (or even need for software to prevent such). But that's just what they do to not suck. From usable CLI to functional least-rights users to better software (no Quicksilver, Textmate or iLife for PC) and on ad infinitum, they also do a tons of things that MS just can't offer.

        If you're happy with the "accomplishment" of not crashing, good for you. I've experienced more and I've come to expect more.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Kjella ( 173770 )
          "XP is a perfectly fine operating system. I haven't had any of my boxes crash... "

          Statements like this really do suggest the negative effect that Microsoft has had on computing. Users now are "perfectly" satisfied if their OS doesn't routinely crash. What should be a basic assumption has become a lauded feat.

          So you're saying that the beta/experimental drivers in Linux, often based on reverse engineering and no actual documentation doesn't crash? I've managed to do it. Also the latest KDE (running Debian etc
      • not crash, then you should get yourself an old copy of DOS and be happy.

        Some of us, on the other hand, have somewhat higher requirements for an OS: decent POSIX support and standard utility programs (e.g. bash), a UI that doesn't mostly freeze when all we're doing is copying a file, the ability to use the machine without having to worry about malware, etc.

        Windows wouldn't meet this criteria even if it were perfectly stable!

  • by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Friday September 08, 2006 @02:51PM (#16068113) Homepage Journal

    I'm not buying another version of Windows. I don't care how good they say it is. I was told Windows 95 would be awesome, it was suffering incarnate. I was told Windows 98 would be great, they started putting in irritating behaviour and it was still a pain to do things with. I was told Windows XP would be great, it's widely credited with being worse than Windows 98.

    Next for me is either Mac or just throw everything I don't have in Linux into Linux. At least that way I stop paying a tax every few years to enrich people who have been very careless with security while at the same time trying to control everyone's market by bundling everything under the sun into it.

    I think Vista could be the best thing Microsoft ever did for Apple or Linux.

    • Ok, seriously now that you are used to XP would you really go back to 98?

      Anyways, I completly agree on Vista, XP is a good product there really isn't much reason to upgrade.

      You will evententually be forced into Vista, in a year or less you will NOT be able to purchase a computer with XP on it. You might be lucky and have a way of getting XP license cheaply so that you can wipe Vista and reinstall. Eventually everyone else will have Vista, and you will not be compatible. :) Sounds like fun hu. Ubuntu I
    • by DragonWriter ( 970822 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @02:59PM (#16068175)
      I was told Windows XP would be great, it's widely credited with being worse than Windows 98.


      Look, I'm no Microsoft fan, but that just seems crazy. Better for what?

    • I'm puzzled how XP is worse than '98 and who is saying that other than maybe a person that plays eight year old games. I suppose if you have a system on 98 that's working well enough for its task, then keep it with 98, but if you have a newer system, then XP is the way to go. Frankly, XP is a lot more stable such that most users don't encounter the BSOD very often, which is usually not the case with 98.
    • Widely Credited? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Un pobre guey ( 593801 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @03:29PM (#16068395) Homepage
      Just what do you mean by "it's widely credited with being worse than Windows 98?" Show us three credible references where Win98 is shown to be better than XP for any common activity today. Win98 was a nightmare, XP more or less works. Believe me, I'm as much of a Microsoft basher as the next guy, but Dude, don't get all foaming-at-the-mouth on us.
  • by HornWumpus ( 783565 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @02:51PM (#16068116)
    A perfectly fine operating system.
    • by IntergalacticWalrus ( 720648 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @03:51PM (#16068544)
      A perfectly fine operating system.

      That is until IBM killed it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      It still is a perfectly fine operating system. Some apps require XP, but those are in the minority; most still work fine with 2k. And having expereinced both 2k and XP, I can tell you that 2k is actually more reliable. I've used XP for months now -- my husband wanted it because a few games he adores won't run on 2k -- and it has only locked up on me twice (which is actually as good as most *nix distros I've tried). But 2k was more reliable still, with lock-ups even fewer and some apps being more stable, des
  • by IPFreely ( 47576 ) <> on Friday September 08, 2006 @02:54PM (#16068136) Homepage Journal
    That's the same thing I said about XP, and the reason I stayed on Win2k way after XP was the norm.

    Sooner or later, it will have something that you need and can't get on XP, or you will get a new PC that has it bundled (or you are not on windows anyway so you aren't part of this conversation :) )

  • From the article:

    Boycott Vista. Keep your old Windows XP PC around. Don't buy a new one.

    So what do I do once popular applications require more RAM than my PC's motherboard can hold? And is PC133 SDRAM even available anymore?

    • by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) *
      So what do I do once popular applications require more RAM than my PC's motherboard can hold?

      Buy a Mac. Run crossover or dual boot to (any version of) windows when you need to. You can use all the RAM you want. You'll be happier all around, I suspect. I know I am.

  • Two comments (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ClosedSource ( 238333 ) * on Friday September 08, 2006 @02:56PM (#16068156)
    1. If Vista is pointless, what does it matter if it's "overhyped and late"?

    2. Would good does it do to send MS a message that XP is perfectly fine? Is any business going to stop developing new versions of sucessful products just because people liked the old version?
    • Re:Two comments (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) * on Friday September 08, 2006 @03:06PM (#16068232) Homepage Journal

      If no one bought Vista, Microsoft would have to consider a different strategy. Perhaps worse, if so few people bought it that (a) they lost money on development and (b) they had to keep losing money on support, that'd really send a message to them. Messages like: We don't like DRM. We don't like bloated code that takes gigs of RAM to run. We don't like code that was written so poorly, or in such retarded languages, that it takes a 2+ GHz PC to get those applications / OS's running in less than sixty seconds. We don't like little "thought bubbles" interrupting us every few minutes to tell us some irrelevant thing like an icon on the desktop is underused. We don't like products that are buggy and are never fixed, but instead we are expected to buy a new product which, perhaps, may fix that bug but has a new set of its own. Don't kid yourself. Microsoft, like everyone else, measures success using currency and nothing else. When you don't buy, you've cast a vote that counts.

      Vista isn't pointless. That's just hyperbole. It is misguided, which is something else entirely.

  • by ex-geek ( 847495 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @03:01PM (#16068184)
    XP was late and overhyped as well. Many argued that NT4SP6, W2K and W98SE would be enough for anyone. There were numerous predictions that companies and consumers wouldn't upgrade and stick with what they have.

    But this didn't happen. XP was adopted, just like Vista will be adopted over time. Trying to stop this inevitable progression is really a complete waste of one's political vigor.
    • by walt-sjc ( 145127 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @03:19PM (#16068324)
      Hmm. Win2K still seems to be huge in the corporate world from what I've seen traveling around. I think the gratuitous random UI changes that simple cause support headaches and lack of compelling reason to upgrade is the cause of that. I still really don't see any major reason to go to XP from 2K (other than XP booting a little faster.)
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by doormat ( 63648 )
        Thats the only thing I like about XP vs 2k. XP can boot much faster. I'm using an old 600Mhz celeron laptop (#@!$% Apple fix my MacBook already) running 2k and it takes almost 5 minutes to get to a working desktop.

        But booting faster isnt worth $99 or whatever to get a copy of XP.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by asuffield ( 111848 )

        Win2K still seems to be huge in the corporate world from what I've seen traveling around. I think the gratuitous random UI changes that simple cause support headaches and lack of compelling reason to upgrade is the cause of that.

        Actually, the major reason for this is because if you're doing the whole Active Directory thing, using it to its fullest extent, then having both Win2K and XP systems on your domain is a disaster. There's a whole pile of complicated compatibility and migration issues when you get be

  • I'll tell you what really grinds my gears -

    People saying Vista is going to be a terrible OS just because of so called computer 'gossip' they heard [hello juding a book by its cover]! I went a TechNet meeting last week on Vista. After sitting in an auditorium for 4 hours, listening and watching what Vista can do, I can't wait to upgrade.

    Vista has matured greatly since Beta 2 (as I had run Beta 2 and am currently running Pre-RC1 right now and RC1 will be installed later tonight). I would greatly appre

    • by ergo98 ( 9391 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @03:11PM (#16068268) Homepage Journal
      I can't wait to upgrade.

      So basically, based upon a superficial, second-hand interaction with the system, you're boosting it.
      I would greatly appreciate people actually installing it and then saying why its no good after they have something to back-it-up with.

      Maybe you're speaking a bit too soon?

      If Microsoft subscribed to more of an Apple model (at least the recent history model), releasing steady improvements at regular intervals, people would be saying "ooh, look, shiny! Oh look, now the fugly is dockable!". Instead Microsoft still has the terrible habit of trying to reinvent, but they're often running to stand still (or more likely running towards the wrong goalpost). So many times they've rewritten something, in the process ruining what they had.

      Vista, for instance, has been promised as a complete overhaul of everything. Geez, I remember 6 years ago reading FUD about how we had to start getting ready for WinFS (I can't even remember what they called it then) because it was going to change everything. Same for XAML (geez, is that even around anymore?) and so on. So for half a decade+ Microsoft has been running on fumes.
  • Right... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Klaidas ( 981300 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @03:04PM (#16068213)
    Boycott all you want - it will became a standard anyway. Just like [insert_windows_version_here] was. Justl like XP is. You want it, or you don't. It will.
    Because changes happen. Welcome to the world of computing.
  • lnkbait (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ednopantz ( 467288 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @03:05PM (#16068224)
    More accurate to say :

    Paul Thurrott is at it again with his seemingly never-ending supply of linkbait, generating page views for his advertisers by beathlessly stating Vista is great one week and it sucks the next.
  • by Senjutsu ( 614542 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @03:17PM (#16068308)
    Paul Thurrott:
    Even calling this thing Windows Mail is an insult. The Windows name should only be added to first rate products.

    But what would they call their operating system, then?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by ozbird ( 127571 )
      But what would they call their operating system, then?

      According (allegedly) to the Latvians, "Chicken" [].
      (If the boycott succeeds, "Microsoft Turkey" might be more appropriate.)
  • by RobertM1968 ( 951074 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @03:23PM (#16068346) Homepage Journal
    MS is making big deals with resellers to push Vista to non-Vista computer users. I work for a CompUSA in NY, and we are soon going to be required to do a Vista analysis on every machine that comes in for service to "advise" the customer of all the "reasons" they should be replacing XP/NT/etc with Vista: "multimedia advantages", "better performance", "better security", "the neat UI experience", and infinitum. Will we? Well, not at this store (we WILL have to run the stupid thing, but we won't be recommending it - which alone can get us into trouble). MS also has deals with resellers where we get credits (towards what, corporate hasnt been clear about - but they make it sound very important to our future business model) for each copy of Vista we activate for a customer and choose CompUSA as the place of purchase. These credits are accrued for each online purchase through MS and their partners of any additional software the consumer buys.

    All in all, it might not be what the customer wants, but MS is ensuring that resellers are doing their best to convince customers that. With their new online software purchasing model, resellers are seeing a need to do this so they get some sort of revenue (credits) for lost software sales that are supposedly going to be done online through MS and their partners.

    Remember, reality doesnt matter... marketing and pressure on resellers does - most people arent computer saavy enough to know whether they are being sold a boat or a boat anchor we've tied around their neck.


  • by Zaphod2016 ( 971897 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @03:35PM (#16068430) Homepage
    From DOS 6.22 through Win XP; I was a M$ junkie. I even went so far as to become MCSE cert. and to attend various M$ propaganda shows here and there. I was one of those guys who justified my addiction by saying "everyone has it" or "I know how to use M$ stuff- I'm too set in my ways to change".

    But it wasn't OSX, *Nix or even the delays of Vista that turned me off to Heir Gates- it was the Internet. As soon as I realized that 90% of my "mission critical" activities were all web-based (email, research, development) I realized that it really didn't matter which desktop I used- they all connected to the same Internet.

    Once I got past that hurdle, I found the courage to play with various linux distros and ended up on a Mac running OSX. In retrospect, I can see perfectly well that all of these options are superior to windows (for my needs, perhaps not yours). However, I was unwilling to even explore my other options because I had trapped myself into a proprietary mindset- something even more dangerous than a proprietary format.

    Having played with these various OSes, I can see that each of them has "borrowed" from each other; features that prove popular in one almost inevitably find themselves to the others. Just like a favorite make/model of car, there is no "wrong" answer, only preferences and favorites. I think the "masses" are begining to understand this, just as they understand a choice between pickup truck or sports car (good for different things).

    And this is why Vista is "doomed"- the dreaded Microsoft Monopoly preys on the ignorance and confusion of the masses. And yes, most people over the age of 40 are mildly retarded in terms of computers. But these dinosaurs are quickly being replaced by a new generation, the first generation "raised on the Internet", the first generation of which 90% are proficient and experienced with a home PC. The confusion factor shrinks more every day, directly proportionate to the decline in M$ market share.
    • by IronChef ( 164482 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @06:36PM (#16069540)
      However, I was unwilling to even explore my other options because I had trapped myself into a proprietary mindset- something even more dangerous than a proprietary format.

      I used to work at Microsoft. I was a lowly orange badge contactor, but I was there for a couple of years alltogether--long enough to get a peek at the corporate culture. Maybe my area was special, but from what I saw the "proprietary mindset" applied to the people making those products too. I encountered many developers and IT guys who didn't seem to understand that there was a whole world of computers beyond Windows.

      It's OK to use Windows. It's even OK to like Windows. But it seems like any computer professional should understand the rest of the ecosystem (eg Unix), at least in general terms. These guys just had a big blind spot though.

      What a strange place.
  • by bravado2112 ( 627937 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @03:38PM (#16068461) Homepage

    I really think that Vista is going to be a reality check for alot of longtime Windows users. Now, to put this in perspective, I've been a longtime Windows user myself since Windows 95 first hit the market. I've used every version of Windows since then on my own desktop and have gone on to break into IT management when Windows 2000 first came out. I also broke into web development by learning ASP six years ago. So you could say that I've supported Microsoft for a very long time and have stood by them ever least up until about two or three years ago! I used to swear by Microsoft. I never understood Linux; I always thought it was overly complex. I didn't get the overzealous, almost cult-like attitude of the Mac community of users. Let's face it...Windows simply dominates the desktop and it's easy to see how Microsoft can continue to hold onto their userbase.

    However, with the release of Vista, I really feel that it will be very similar to what happened with Windows Millenium Edition. Starting with beta 1, I've installed and tried out each subsequent build of Vista all the way up to the latest RC1 release. All I can say is...WHAT THE?? It's a dog...a big ole' stinkin' dog! I couldn't believe the amount of resources you really need to run it. The default install is over 6 gigs, you need at least a gig of RAM just to get by, and the new interface is pointless unless you have a fairly decent video card that is DirectX 9 compatible. All in all, lots of fluff with little substance. Plus, the new User Account Control features really feel like something of an if Microsoft just layered it on top of their existing security model leftover from Windows 2000 and XP. UAC is useless...especially when you consider that a user with administrator rights can simply disable the damn thing!

    The problem is this: In order for Vista or any other future version of Windows to continue to succeed, Microsoft needs to learn that Windows needs to be rebuilt and reworked with a new security model that rivals even Unix-based operating systems. Nobody can say that Unix, Linux, and even Mac OS X are bad operating systems when it comes to security. They are very secure by their very nature on how they were built. Microsoft needs to learn from this and build on top of it. This is why Apple made such a smart move when they developed OS X. Rather than re-inventing the wheel, they simply took a proven secure OS and built on top of it. The beauty behind this is that the OS is modular and can be easily updated and upgraded. Windows is anything but modular.

    I've since moved on from ASP and am now using PHP as my web development platform of choice. Naturally, I use Linux as a server platform and plan to use a Mac as a desktop. I'm simply tired of Microsoft and all their shenanigans. At least with Apple, when they say their going to do something they do it! They don't tease their customers with features and then pull them out later and say, "Sorry! We screwed up!" So, make mine Apple! I'm really looking forward to Leopard! :)

  • by aldheorte ( 162967 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @03:40PM (#16068470)
    I guess I'm just going to have to keep saying it until it stops:

    When it is released and available for purchase, have someone review it like any other product, make one post, and be done with it. We don't need to hear about or debate every single time a developer in the Windows group sneezes or a random blogger decides to write their personal conclusions on a product that isn't even released
    • by theonetruekeebler ( 60888 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @05:54PM (#16069327) Homepage Journal
      Yeah, this debate is totally taking up space we could be devoting to SCO.

      Seriously, though, knowing what Vista has to offer in advance is important to anyone who has to plan in advance. My employer will be buying fifty or so desktop PCs next Spring. Do we get XP or Vista? Can we get XP? If Vista is inevitable or presents compelling needs, do we wait for pre-installed Vista or do we buy XP machines early and upgrade later? What if we don't have a choice? How long will MS continue to sell XP? To support it? What will be the interoperability issues? Do we need to bite the bullet and upgrade absolutely everything to Vista at once?

      We have a lot of knowledge and technology already invested in XP and we have to know what's going to happen with its replacement before we sink, ultimately, hundreds of thousands of dollars into a new generation of technology.

      So that's why a lot of people want to know whether this thing is worth a damn.

  • by kinglink ( 195330 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @03:47PM (#16068512)
    Owen Thomas's article is horrid, but if you had yet to read Thurrott's article go read it. He actually makes points, not just observations and tells you to boycott. He puts the blame squarely where it should go. On microsoft's head.

    I fear the idea of Windows Mail, a system that makes Outlook Express seem advanced? Sadly the only thing I'm hearing that will cause users to upgrade to vista is DirectX 10 and of course graphics, and I don't see anyone saying they won't support XP in games just yet.
  • by omega9 ( 138280 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @03:56PM (#16068578)
    Boycott Vista. Keep your old Windows XP PC around. Don't buy a new one.

    That's the key that I think a lot of the other comments are missing. As individuals, we're not nearly as important to the absorbtion rate of Vista as Dell, HP, Gateway and all the other PC manufactures are. People "in the know" about Vista don't seem to be terribly excited about it, at least not as much as previous versions of Windows. Those not in the know will be presented with the opportunity to pay a couple hundred dollars for an upgrade, at minimum, to get no more functionality then thay have, and likely find out that the experience will suck unless they also purchace new hardware. That doesn't seem exciting to me either.

    But from the day Vista is released, every small to large scale PC manufacturer will be preinstalling it instead of XP. Just about every new machine purchased will be a Vista purchase. The number of copies of Windows bought off the shelf pales in comparison to pre-installed distribution. So what if we don't go out and buy a retail upgrade?

    And that's where the magic of Microsoft kicks in. Even when delivering a half-baked, late-delivered operating system, they'll still be successful. There's little to no chance that someone like Dell will be convinced to not deal with Vista. Bigger operating systems need bigger hardware means more sales means more markups. An individual boycot is not only unlikely, it's completely ineffective.
  • mathematics (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xoundmind ( 932373 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @03:57PM (#16068583)
    Let's assume Vista hits the streets in February 2007. After how many months will Dell, etc be required to drop XP and only ship Vista? (My guess 3 - 6 months.) At that point:
    About 200 million pcs are sold annually. And 96% (?) of those will have Vista.
    Microsoft is not worried about the 1-2 year upgrade holdouts.
  • by Carlyle ( 993954 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @04:06PM (#16068643)
    What I worry about is there being 32 and 64 bit versions of Vista. I think it just confuses the market. I use the computer for software development, business, media editing, and gaming. I would like to get the 64 bit version of Windows Vista for the expanded memory capability, and the signed drivers. What scares me away though is the fact that there is a 32 bit version of Vista.

    Are the people who make my development software, business software, media software, and games going to develop their products for both versions of the operating system? Will I have to worry about compatibility issues? If my current library of software, hardware, and games work with the 32-bit version of the Vista operating system will they also work with the 64 bit version?

    Can we really expect hardware manufacturers to make top quality drivers for both the 32 and 64 bit versions of Vista? Will it take longer for hardware manufacturers to produce drivers now since they have to provide two versions? Why didn't microsoft make a single unified driver model for the 32/64 bit versions of Vista? As I understand it, Apple has done this.

    I wish they had just made a 64 bit version of Vista, and focused on giving it a good Windows on Windows emulation for 32 bit apps and backwards compatibility. The only reason I can see for having a 32-bit version of the OS is because Intel currently ships Core 2 Duo chips that are only 32-bits.

    Usually I've always upgraded to the latest version of windows as soon as it was released to retail, but I intend to wait several months before I make a purchase. Now I feel forced to wait until I hear all reviews about compatibility and stability, and opinion articles about 32 bit versus 64 bit. I plan to buy a whole new machine to ensure full compatibility with the new OS and to take advantage of it's high end features.

    I like a lot of what I've seen about the architecture of Windows Vista and the new features they have added, what I don't like is the uncertainty of the compatibility. If I buy the 64 bit version of Vista will I be screwed by compatibility issues, and slow hardware driver releases? Will I be able to play my games or am I buying a Beta machine?
  • by Snarfiorix ( 1001357 ) on Friday September 08, 2006 @05:34PM (#16069219) Journal
    It must be me, but having 3 flavours of linux running, a Mac G4 and 3 PC's with windows XP, XP-x64 and 2003 I don't understand all the flaming back and forth. I love the Linux for getting me on the internet worry free and letting me experiment with all kinds of stuff, I dig the Mac for feeding my Ipod and driving my KORG WS and I just cherisch my Windows flavours for getting my Canos EOS connected and playing my games, doing my SQL 2005 and putting my ASP based forum up nice and secure. I have dedictated a disc for Vista (RC1 at the moment) and I don't realy see the reason for all the big fuss. Everybody is shouting about monopolies and in the same sentence is pushing there own fav OS. Realy, it CAN work, I have all those PC's working in harmony and I wouldn't want to part with any of them. Whenever I get comments to ditch this or that it reminds me of all those fundamentalists trying to force their religion onto the world. Believe me, they all work, they all are manageble, they all have their down and up sides. You just need to know what you are doing... And that is what REAL system administration is all about. Everything else is just an inabbility to deal with it.

"Neighbors!! We got neighbors! We ain't supposed to have any neighbors, and I just had to shoot one." -- Post Bros. Comics