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?
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
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:4, Funny)
All the Linux distributions are "bloated" [...]
My Gentoo is not.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Duh (Score:5, Funny)
No, it's not. There, a picture of me:
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ouch, aren't your neck vertebrae screaming in pain?
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:4, Interesting)
Not really. The recent experience i had with that was when i went and installed all the mainstream distros under VirtualBox because i was packaging my code for most of them.
Some of them come with hundreds of megabytes worth of locale data for obscure languages that i will never ever use, and default to several gigs of installation size, without ever asking if i wanted office productivity suites installed on my dev boxen or not.
Figuring out and uninstalling the nonnecessary cruft is nontrivial, and often impossible because of deep dependencies between packages, especially in Gnome and KDE desktop suites.
Yes, i could go with source-based distro and spend weeks tuning everything from scratch, but what does it really give me ? A few gigs of spare disk space ? A small percentage faster load times ? Its not really worth the effort. The truth is, 98% of the "customers" dont care about the bloat per se, so from the software packagers point of view its just easier to live with it.
Re:Duh (Score:5, Interesting)
You seem to mostly be talking about "install bloat", not "runtime bloat".
Although both are bad, I think that these days it's pretty much agreed that using 2GB more hard drive space probably isn't a big deal.
The problem is that Windows has so many background things running that really are required to do anything useful (like using the network), plus all the extra background tasks that you might not feel you need, but turn out to be required for things like applying updates. A Windows XP install with just the Microsoft standard background tasks takes about 300MB of RAM to do nothing, and Vista is far more bloated than that.
Good examples:
This kind of bloat where Microsoft has "important" background programs running that you can't turn off but don't really need just does not happen in a Linux install. Yes, there are some stupid Linux installs that have too many services running by default, but you can just turn off the ones you don't use, and nothing else stops working.
Re:Uninstall what you don't want from Windows too (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay. Let's start with Internet Explorer.
Re:Uninstall what you don't want from Windows too (Score:5, Interesting)
Just get rid of the shortcut, it's a lot easier than trying to rip out vital parts of the OS because you'll just get all whiny when removing the only web accessing part of the OS too.
You'll whine that you can no longer use FTP, you'll whine that for some reason you can no longer connect to network shares, etc. What you want to get rid of, sir, is the shortcut. After all, IE is basically a wrapper around the internal engine (Trident.)
Anyway, there are still some applications you should not remove from most distros. Remove apt from Ubuntu and have fun setting it up again, stuff like that.
Re:Uninstall what you don't want from Windows too (Score:5, Informative)
See, that's precisely the problem.
In Windows, IE has been shoved into places where there's really no good reason for it to be, other than for MS to be able to claim it can't be removed.
Why is an HTML rendering engine needed to access network shares? Why is it needed to access FTP? Why is it needed to get updates?
Even MS had to recognize that updates through ActiveX in a website have disadvantages and had to code an actual application (the systray update applet) to do things that they couldn't shoehorn IE into. But of course they had to stop one step short of making it fully functional, because if it was, the windows update site would look stupid, and one of the places it's not possible to remove IE from would no longer exist.
Re:Uninstall what you don't want from Windows too (Score:5, Informative)
Why is it needed to get updates?
Even MS had to recognize that updates through ActiveX in a website have disadvantages and had to code an actual application (the systray update applet) to do things that they couldn't shoehorn IE into. But of course they had to stop one step short of making it fully functional, because if it was, the windows update site would look stupid, and one of the places it's not possible to remove IE from would no longer exist.
Apparently you've not seen Vista yet, but that's ok.
In Vista, the Windows Update site does nothing, other than tell you to open the Windows Update app.
As for why they had to code an actual application? It's so it can run in the background. Otherwise you'd need to open your browser every day to check for updates.
Re:Uninstall what you don't want from Windows too (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (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 wi
Re: (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
Re:Uninstall what you don't want from Windows too (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
The "average" Linux user, if he wants a leaner install, can just choose one that is already pared down. He doesn't have to start with a kitchen sink DVD and try to trim it himself, he can get Damn Small Linux, 50 MB, for example. Windows users cannot buy a legal cutdown version. (There are plenty of DIY Windows versions online, but all are illegal and/or require a great deal of knowledge to install.)
Why it is impressive (Score:5, Informative)
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 were only "crap" in the sense that not everything in the window manager (essentially) had been worked out as much. People didn't like Finder as much as the old, there was not as much software - but the core was in OK shape.
Even the earliest releases were still based on a lot of solid components, like BSD and Apache and so on.
So yes, it's impressive that the CORE system is faster overall with less bloat than the original OS X versions. Just look at what Apple did with launchd to replace a number of different processes and speed up boot as an example...
Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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 o
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>Almost every operating system has gone through this.
No not true. In the past Microsoft might say, "XP can run on 128 megabte" and it did. With Vista they claimed it can run on 512 megabyte, and it didn't. It runs like a snail through amber. In the past MS was honest about the minimum requirements but *this* time Microsoft lied, pure and simple, and a lot of people upgraded or bought Vista machines that could not run the OS properly.
As for Windows 7:
Will it run on 512 megabyte? No. Then it'
Re: (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:Duh (Score:4, Funny)
MS-DOS = lean
Windows 1.0 = bloated
(This is mfh [slashdot.org] posting as AC to avoid the karmic nicely hurting damage and such.)
Re:Duh (Score:4, Funny)
user #1 "Apple is for fags!"
User #2: Microsoft never did anything wrong. People who complain about their business practices are just cry babies!"
User #1: "Oh yeah!? Well, Linux Sucks!"
User #2: Cowers away from being beaten.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The correct answer was, "guess what, Google is evil!"
Re:Duh (Score:4, Funny)
DC = bloated
Re:Duh (Score:4, Funny)
Tesla, you are supposed to be in hiding, if Edison finds out we're gonna have a flame war.
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.
Re:Duh (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, yes - because XP has been around for so long, hardware has overtaken it.
That's one thing that annoys me about Microsoft (as well as games companies). When I finally get a fast enough computer for the goddamned program to run well they stop supporting it!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't worry, when you grow up you'll have a job that pays more than Burger King.
Re:Duh (Score:4, Informative)
Windows XP has been out for -eight years-, can you name a Linux distro that old that you can still get support on?
First, bear in mind that there have been 3 XP "service packs" during that period, which were, in effect, pretty significant upgrades (not to mention 3-4 Internet Explorer versions which also tinkered with the core OS). Genuine question: can you get any XP support that doesn't start with the instruction "first install SP2 or later"?
Second, Open Source makes a difference: once Microsoft withdraws support for something, that's curtains. If an old version of an open source project is in widespread use, you're likely to find someone, somewhere backporting patches - or you can do it yourself. Not a solution for Joe Endluser, of course, but Microsoft doesn't do long-term support for Joe Endluser's benefit either.
Thirdly (and this is less of a defense and more of an explanation), XP is "just" the core operating system, GUI, admin tools, a few bare-bones apps and (until the EU gets its way) web browser. A typical linux distro is a full-blown, all singing, all dancing application and development suite, often with a choice of 2-3 GUIs, a couple of office suites, 2-3 DBMSs, various web and file sharing servers, TeX/Latex, PDF creation and viewing utilities, 1000 elephants and a hard-boiled egg. Its pretty inevitable that you can't support that lot for too long. If you really were looking for a long-term support solution, the "mugs eyeful" desktop distros might not be the best place to go.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
XP *has* gotten pretty bloated.
Back in the SP1 days, you could run XP acceptably on 256MB of RAM, and pretty decently on 512. Today, 512 feels cramped, and is the bare minimum I'd recommend for running SP3 and all the security patches.
1GB is a more reasonable minimum if you actually want to use apps. Firefox 3 is hungry enough that it'll use up 100-300MB if you have a lot of tabs open, so you really do need at *least* 1GB to run the OS plus just a web browser, which is really pretty minimal in terms of ap
Re:Duh (Score:4, Insightful)
But is firefox eating up memory the OS's fault or the people who wrote firefox?
Re: (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
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.
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.
Re: (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 f
Re: (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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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:Duh (Score:5, Interesting)
Windows XP = lean
Windows Vista = fat
Windows 7 = leaner than Vista = Windows XP
Actually I think it is more like this
Windows XP = Coke
Windows Vista = New Coke [wikipedia.org]
Windows 7 = Classic Coke
Sales of "Classic" Coke skyrocketed when it was RE-introduced to the market. People hoarded it just in case Coca Cola discontinued it again. I see sales of 7 to be quite brisk at launch. Whether you like Vista or not prevailing public opinion is not favorable so anything that replaces it should do well.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
RE:Is Microsoft Improving Its Image? (Score:5, Funny)
Hi. You must be new here...
Re:Is Microsoft Improving Its Image? (Score:4, Informative)
First Post (Score:5, Funny)
Though, since I am using Windows 7 beta, it might take a little while...
bollocks (Score:3)
The authors here are just having a laugh, aren't they?
just a pig with lipstick (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:just a pig with lipstick (Score:5, Funny)
Probably more along the lines... (Score:4, Insightful)
No (Score:4, Funny)
The Jerry ads destroyed MSFT's already fucked up image, by making it more fucked up.
In order to get their image repaired they have to embrace Linux, and Open Source and then they can claim to be pioneers again, like when they pioneered a UI based OS by copying Apple.
Re:No (Score:5, Funny)
like when they pioneered a UI based OS by copying Apple.
You misspelled Xerox.
but (Score:4, Informative)
But isn't Windows 7 just a service pack for Vista? From what's been touted about it doesn't look and leaner or meaner they've just put some speed improvements into the UI to make it look faster.
The majority of the stuff under the hood is still vista so people will probably have the same problems.
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: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.
No. Microsoft Goal is unchanged. (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft's goal is to be like cable TV.
You pay about $50 a month to use their O/S. And then you pay an extra $10 a month for Word, or get the Premium package with Word, Excel, and Access for $20.
Is this where you want to be in 5 years?
I prefer to own, not rent my own PC.
I prefer to own, not rent my applications.
I want my applications to be mine and my data to be mine so that I do not lose access to them arbitrarily.
Microsoft is a big scammy company that provides extremely easy to use products that work reasonably well.
I don't like them as a company but I can deal with that.
I do like their ease of use and will miss it but the free competition is now only a couple years behind microsoft (and gaining).
But I won't be lead to market to slaughter and end up renting their OS and applications at the rates they desire.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think what he means is he doesn't want to plunk down a wad of cash for an OS, then be forced to keep paying a monthly fee or his OS stops working.
It's a preference for an ownership model vs. a subscription model and I agree with him. I'm aware that Windows today is licensed as I'm sure he was, but it's a license with a fee that you pay once. The same with Office. What MS probably dreams of is moving to a subscription model where users have no choice but to pay monthly for continued use of their OS.
The
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
> You don't own any application you use, unless you wrote it.
Quit being such a corporate boot-licker.
You own a copy of a work in perpetuity unless there is some other
sort of license in effect. If you are a consumer, any relevant
license may be considered null and void for various reasons related
to notions in contract law.
My copy of Word Perfect 8 for Linux continues to be mine until
I sell the original package (and media) it came in. The same
goes for my 10 year old copies of Applix and CivCTP.
The same also
Re: (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
Excited about a new OS release? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
> allowing computers to be affordable to greater portion of the populace.
PCs finally managed to come down to the price of early home computers about 20 years after Atari and Commodore achieved the same thing. ...nice historical revisionism there.
Only to some (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Only to some (Score:5, Interesting)
Why would you want reduced playback support in your OS?
Because if no one releases programs which play broken DRMed files, then people will eventually stop releasing broken DRMed files.
Media companies will whine and complain that the lack of DRM prevents them from selling their media on windows PCs, but it only takes one company to break rank and start making money (much like EMI with MP3s) and the rest will cave.
Besides, since I never buy DRMed media, it doesn't really matter to me whether any device I own can play it or not.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That was because Opera forced them to [opera.com], not because they wanted to look like nice guys. They just didn't want more fines.
utter rubbish (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry, but this is laughable. With a marketshare that is measured in fractions of a percent, Opera isn't going to force anybody to do anything. It might have something to do with threats from the EU. And before you start: no, Opera didn't force the EU to do that either.
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)
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:A little early, isn't it? (Score:5, Funny)
The beta has been out for a while, you know.
People will say whatever they want (Score:3, Interesting)
I, for one, prefer windows over linux, and the thought that Windows 7 is better than vista makes me excited to try it. My main machine is still XP, but I've got Vista at work and on my laptop, and I just can't stand it. Anybody who says vista is good is somebody who only tries websurfing- not actually trying to get something done.
Now, if only they got rid of the pesky sys requirements of windows. I don't want to need 4gb of RAM minimum to get things running smoothly. I want things to run with 512 as smoothly as XP does, and allow the extra 3.5 gb of memory to give me extra performance with other programs.
This is it!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Cinderella Story! (Score:5, Funny)
I love it when the scrappy little come-from-behind underdog is able to pull itself up by the bootstraps and get from a measly 89% market-share all the way back up to 95%. It renews my faith in the hope and outright tenacity of the little guy!
Not Windows 7 (Score:3, Interesting)
There is also a business-related issue. Microsoft is now the underdog compared to Google. Google gave away a free desktop sidebar, and now Microsoft has made that obsolete by bundling in their own with Vista and Windows 7. A decade ago, there would have been howls of monopolization, and using Windows to enter an adjacent market. Today, nothing. Today it is seen as Microsoft defending its desktop turf against Google's Internet challenge.
Actions speak louder than words (Score:4, Insightful)
Ballmer has to go (Score:5, Interesting)
If Microsoft wants me to "like them":
1. Ballmer has to go. This guy is just offensive. Between the combat metaphors and the chair tossing, I can't respect any company run by this guy. AND, he's doing a poor job of running Microsoft.
2. The 'kinder/gentler Microsoft' has to become more open. That means opening up APIs and stop trying to manipulate standardization processes.
3. They have to improve their product quality. That will be a huge challenge given their code base, and maybe Windows 7 will be a substantial quality improvement. The record for Microsoft seems to be "every other product is OK" (Win 98 was much better than Win 95, Win XP is much better than Win 2k, hopefully Win 7 will be much better than Vista."
4. They also need to pay attention to both Apple and to their own research arm, and start -innovating-rather than blindly copying what others are doing.
5. Until 1..4 are achieved, I'm not going to like Microsoft. More importantly, I'll not even consider a car (e.g. Ford) that has Microsoft products in it, and the idea of the current Microsoft trying to "fix health care records" scares the fertilizer out of me.
Just my $.02...
New tag: writerwillwinalaptop (Score:5, Insightful)
Quote from Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)
"Oh, wow, maybe people won't just buy whatever crap we try to shove down their throats. This is going to take a bit of rethinking of our strategy..."
Sorry, couldn't resist. I understand that the automobile industry is going through the same realization. We can hope that a few others might get the clue...
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!
Not bad, not bad at all. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.)
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.
Windows 7 Appears to be SHILLTASTIC!!!! (Score:5, Informative)
I see the Redmond shill machine is in full swing now. First it gobbles up MSZD.Net. Now another publication is releasing "features" on how "performant" and "fantastic" Windows 7 is.
Bull Fraking Shit.
Windows 2000 and NT 4 was as lean as it got! Want a reminder? Load up Windows NT Server 4.0 in a virtual machine and see how much resources are being used.
20 fraking MB!
Even XP is bloated! Ever wonder why Windows Explorer sometimes takes a few seconds to create a folder on a Quad Core 3.0GHZ 4GB machine? A second on this machine has probably 1000 times more processing power than the Voyager probe and the Apollo 11 Moon lander (if you believe in all that). Yet I have to wait and twiddle my thumbs...
Its been downhill since Windows 2000. That OS ran gorgeously on my dual Pentium III 350 (250MB). XP pigged that machine in the space of time it took to install XP.
I company I worked at recently still used NT 4 to run SQL Server... and it ran like the wind... until a US company took us over and due to Sarbanes Oxley (read "license to print money" from a Redmon/corporate friendly regime) we had to upgrade to SQL Server 2099 (which sucked and was oh so .Net slow), Exchange 3059 (which sucked and was oh so .Net bloated) and a Server OS that gobbled up about 15 gig RAM just on startup.
OK. I exaggerate... but you get the picture.
I was tempted to pull out my old faithful PIII 350 (which happily runs Linux now) and install Windows 7... but why bother?
These days I console myself by liberating PCs from Windows and getting refunds for bundled Vista + Works licenses (thats £120 + vat in Blighty) on all PC purchases.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect that the relationship's probably more akin to the one Belkin had with their "reviewers".
Re: (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:New! with 50% less stink! (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems that Windows 7 is still a lot like Vista to me.
Shouldn't be surprising to anyone with a half a brain in his head (or has any memory of Microsoft product releases), but that said, take it from the horse's mouth.
PBS' Charlie Rose interviewed Bill Gates a few weeks back and asked him whether Windows 7 was indeed new, or it whether it represented an incremental improvement to Vista. Gates became uncomfortable, went silent for a few seconds, and muttered it was the latter. An awkward pause ensued before the next question was asked. Unsurprisingly, he was more forthcoming and talkative when the questions were general, and weren't about Microsoft or Windows.
So there you have it kids. Windows 7 is the marketing name for Vista SP3. It should really be SP2.5, but the small collections of features to Windows 7 as sales enticements merit some recognition. But then, that's from someone who thought Win98SE was kind of cool.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Think of the progression as: Clinton == XP : The best one of the three who made the best use of resources but was muscled out my some goons. G.W. Bush == Vista : By far the worst. All hat and no cattle, bloated, frequently went on vacation while on the job, in the pocket of special interests, and crammed down our throats. No coincidence, then, that it was codenamed "longhorn". Obama == 7 : Quite possibly the flashiest and most hopeful, known for being better than Vista but not as good as the glory days of XP before the "9/11" of DRM/trusted computing/BallmerCheney's grasp.
By that logic Bush senior is windows 2000. I don't think you thought this through.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
> I've also heard that Cheney being wheeled around in a wheel chair makes him more likable.
When I saw him, I don't know exactly why, but this reminded me of Dr Strangelove...
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.
*sigh* (Score:4, Informative)
The real problem is that Windows 7 is just a service pack for Vista.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7 [wikipedia.org]