MS products just too cool to comprehend, say MS geeks When the product sucks but you can't bring yourself to admit the horrible truth, what's the next logical step? Blame the message, the messenger or the recipient of the message. Simple. Microsoft's normally bombastic marketing has begun blaming Windows Vista's poor uptake on the modesty of its own message, while exaggerating …
Vista runs JUST fine if you have a machine built right. I've been running Vista for nearly a year, and I've had far fewer problems with it than I had with Windows XP during its first 3 years. Do you know why? Because I built my machine properly.
How long was 512 memory considered a standard level with 256 being still available? The answer is TOO LONG. Processors increased in power ten-fold, memory performance increased several times, yet the amount of memory OEMs are willing to package with their systems remained largely the same. If you followed the technology curve between 1996-2002, a gigabyte of RAM should have been the standard around 2004, and they should have been transitioning to 2 gigabytes right about then. Guess what? These scam artists were still under-equipping their systems with memory, choking off the processor and gutting the performance.
Then there's these jackass hardware vendors who won't support their own hardware. Nvidia didn't release a single driver from December 2007 to June 2008, and the December 2007 driver was grossly unstable. Statistically, Nvidia drivers alone were responsible for 25% of Vista crashes. The ONLY semi-stable Vista driver before June was the October driver. You see it time and time again, hardware vendors refusing to support their product and screwing YOU, the consumer.
There's no secret to the system I built. 2 gigabytes of memory isn't that expensive. A semi-decent video card isn't expensive either. But these jackasses are screwing you left and right. Nvidia should have had stable drivers along with the other hardware vendors, and the OEMs should have put more RAM in their systems. It's hard to blame Microsoft when vendors decided to stagnate and screw you. Fact is, Vista works. Vista is stable. Vista is fast. If you want to blame someone, blame Dell, HP, or whoever built your PC. They screwed you, not Microsoft. Put blame where blame is due, and don't go, "Oh, my system runs like crap with Vista! It's got the same memory in it the system I bought 5 years ago had!"
I'd say that the *retarded* aspect was to "design" an operating system (ha!) that was so bloated and so demanding that it needs top end kit just to start, and even worse to deliberately exclude third-party developers thus ensuring that there were far too many application incompatibilities.
but I hear what you say about OEMs ripping us off - just remember that M$ are hand-in-glove with thse OEMs and together the lot of them conned the world that Vista was some great leap forward and... it wasn't.
I love the way Microsoft has been pulling the wool over punters' eyes for years.
They release a new, more convoluted O/S then, when things start going pear shaped they always come back with the reply "Oh, things will be better on release of the first, second, third etc service pack." And yet they still get people to pay for this sort of scam.
No wonder people are moving over to Apple and Gnu/Linux where things just work. I hear some people saying "Linux ?" Yes, that's right, most distros these days with the exception of Gentoo and its ilk just load and run. Having just retired from supporting Microsoft's product I certainly do not miss the scrabbling around looking for drivers, loading on anti malware, waiting for patches etc. Needless to say I run Gnu/Linux.
Smiley because billg and his appalling messes kept me in a well paid job for years cleaning up after him.
I think the point you are missing (and this has been made before) is that there is no net benefit from adding the extra hardware to 'allow' Vista to run right. You don't get anything (functionality, stability, security, user experience) substantially better than XP. So, it always comes back to the question, why bother?
Let the flame wars begin!
:) "Vista is fast". Have you been sleep typing again?
I myself have used Microsoft products from DOS to Vista (missing ME out) & built a system using top-notch hardware (with 2GB RAM) specifically for Vista. It runs... well... adequately, but on more than 1 occassion I've been tempted to go back to XP Pro which I know would run at a blistering speed & improve my productivity tenfold.
Therefore, I've got to disagree with your vendors statement. From my point of view they're not the problem... Microsoft are clearly at fault in my eyes. And how many years did they spend developing this product?
Vista's a touch on the lardy side for my liking... really can't understand why it needs to be so bloaty either. Even Microsoft seem to be struggling to comprehend their own code judging from the update fiascos we've had over this past year.
Mike says vista is fine I have a brand new machine 2 gig mem latest Intal chip vista is still slow (running ultimate)
Drops off line for no reason. when on wireless wont let me move certain music files compared to XP slow cumbersome and crap compared to Ubunto even slower more cumberson and more crap.
Why must I buy a machine with 2GB of RAM and a fancy graphics card just to run an Operating System ?
If I just want to do some word processing, spreadsheet, browsing, and maybe a bit of photo editing, why do I need such a high-end computer ?
Until Vista came along, we all had far more computing horsepower than we needed. Now Vista is here, we don't have anywhere near enough. This smacks of either sloppy/bad programming, or bloatware. Sites such as http://www.win2008workstation.com/ seem to suggest it's bloatware.
Paris - cause no-one could accuse her of having any bloat
Interesting point by Mike. Apparently its not MS fault, its the fact that hardware manufacturers did not meet MS system demands. This is a little bit like putting the cart before the horse.
The fact is, why can't I run vista on 256 MB, 1 GHz processor especially if I am only going to browse the internet etc. Vista is like a all you can eat banquet when all you want is a quick sandwich. Or to paraphase Terry Prachett, if asked customers would tell you they want a 20 course banquet, when in fact all they really want is a plate of sausage and chips with perhaps a tomatoe on the side
It goes to show the lack of MS foresight. They blindly assumed we would continue to want faster and faster machines and they could be lazy with the vista hardware spec. Fact is I would say most people hardware requirements were met about 2 or 3 years ago(I am not talking about hard-core gamers here, just the 95% of other people) and unless a killer app comes along that increases that requirement why shouls they change.As such Vista overshot the mark. Why buy a new PC just to run vista when your present hardware does everything you need and more.
The other market trend is for simpler devices such as netbooks, that does not offer all bells and whistles but does enough functionality in a cheap package. The fact that MS has had to desperately ressurrect windows XP for this market just goes to show how prescient MS really is.
One thing I hope to see in Windows 7 is a truly modular OS, like linux etc that instead of telling people what they require actually meets peoples requirements
"If you followed the technology curve between 1996-2002, a gigabyte of RAM should have been the standard around 2004, and they should have been transitioning to 2 gigabytes right about then."
This, and your other remarks, are all very true but I think it is missing the point. *Why* should operating systems have followed the "technology curve"?
Over the period 1980-1995, the "OS" had gone from a thin wrapper over the BIOS to a full UNIX-style OS with security, device abstraction, multi-threading and memory protection. Over the period 1995-2010, the only significant change is the inclusion of a full network stack (or two, if you run IPv6).
Now, it is true that what people use machines for has changed significantly, and video-editing is rather more demanding than maintaining a stock control database. However, that's *applications* and for those who aren't running them the cost shouldn't matter. It *is* fair to compare (say) NT4 with Vista for the common case of just sitting there surfing the (modern day) web. I think you'll find that NT4 wipes the floor with Vista on the same hardware. *That's* what folks are complaining about, the *irreducible* bloat in recent versions of Windows.
Moore's Law is very nice, but let's not lose sight of the fact that our toys exist to do a job, and if the job hasn't become any harder then it *is* reasonable to assume that the cost shouldn't have gone up either. Too many people in the IT industry seem to take bloat as a given. People outside IT don't understand that. It's not true in any other walk of life.
Please stop astro-turfing - it's boring.
Users are fed up with
MS - it's HP/Dell' fault
HP/Dell - it's MS's fault
MS - it's HP/Dell' fault
HP/Dell - it's MS's fault
MS - it's HP/Dell' fault
HP/Dell - it's MS's fault
MS - it's HP/Dell' fault
HP/Dell - it's MS's fault
MS - it's HP/Dell' fault
HP/Dell - it's MS's fault
MS - it's HP/Dell' fault
HP/Dell - it's MS's fault
MS - it's HP/Dell' fault
HP/Dell - it's MS's fault
MS - it's HP/Dell' fault
HP/Dell - it's MS's fault
MS - it's HP/Dell' fault
HP/Dell - it's MS's fault
MS - it's HP/Dell' fault
HP/Dell - it's MS's fault
MS - it's HP/Dell' fault
HP/Dell - it's MS's fault
ad infinitum...
If MS was any good why don't THEY produce a PC. Cos they know the support costs would bust them that's why.
So how come my girlfriend's dual core 2gb vaio pre-installed with vista runs as if it only had 256gb of Ram? Whenever I have to do anything with it - ie try and remind it that we do have an internet connection etc... it takes such a long time to open a window I usually leave the room and put the kettle on.
She is begging me to upgrade it to Win XP - fortunately sony have just released XP dirvers for her particular model so it won't be an issue shortly.
What's your point? You've got a big system?
Why don't you address the issue of what advantages there are in upgrading from a previous version of windows? Note the upgrading qualifier, purchases of new machines have no choice. Don't tell us how wonderful you find vista, that's useless, tell us why we should upgrade.
Mike you shouldn't need 2-4Gb of ram to run an operating system at a decent speed, I don't care how times have moved on and technology has changed, that just takes the piss. I've go a dencent pc, built with 2007 components but when i started using vista it dragged itself around like a 2 legged dog. It never crashed but it took months to finally work out that I had to turn off all Vista's new functions to get it up to speed. That's the problem, you need a level of technical know-how to turn off all these features to get the thing running, and most users don't have that. It was built by geeks for geeks.
I'm afraid you've got a point but Vista still crashes and runs slow on higher spec machines. I built three recently, all with 2GB and had speed/stability problems. Problems that didn't exist with XP.
I'm aware that there's a small group of people like you who have had good experiences but one swallow doesn't a summer make!
Now some of my users are starting to ask why they need so much memory when their son/daughter has got Linux working on an old machine at home. It's becoming difficult to give a convincing reply........
Mike, that's all very well - but what does Vista offer people that's genuinely useful across the board and a compelling reason to upgrade from XP or remain MS-friendly rather than switching to the likes of RHEL? I've had it at home on a system that I made sure could run it competently, and while it's stable enough and functions alright, there's nothing there to make me *want* to switch. Sure, application compatibility may eventually force me to switch over permanently, but that's hardly a selling point. The only genuinely good things I've seen about it are UAC and the integrated support for graphics tablets.
Yes, I agree that bitching about an OS while running it on sub-spec hardware is a bit silly. But on the other hand MS have released an OS that basically won't talk to any hardware more than 18 months old, without telling anyone why they should upgrade to it. The admin team at my workplace use XP computers to connect to a Citrix server, browse the web and run Office. Vista gives them no advantages, so we're not moving them onto it. The same goes for most of the Windows users in the entire department, to be honest.
Now, if Vista would run on hardware up to 3 years old, then I'd be thinking about it. But since rolling out Vista across the board would require updating the hardware for at least half the department *with no significant advantages*, it can wait a while longer...
The answer - there is no problem.
There's an old saying that people hate change. They really do. Upgrading the OS on your machine is a pain, and people won't go through that pain unless it offers the solution to a problem.
Vista does not offer a compelling solution to problems that most users have, and most users have no real problem with Windows XP anyway. Therefore, no uptake except in new machines.
What's worse is that more people are realising that their machines don't need upgrading. You don't need a quad core 3GHz Intel with 2GB of RAM and a graphics card with the electricity consumption of a small country, just to browse facebook, order the week's shopping from Tesco online, and watch kittens on YouTube.
Unless, of course, you use Vista, because you need that much grunt just to boot it.
(No upgrades, no problem, so no icon.)
I thought that comment was going to turn out to many similar posts about Vista being 'OK for me', but you had a decent point tacked on the end.
The sellers who are building crappy specced, bloatware infested computers are just as much to blame, as are the poor driver writers (glad Nvidia was mentioned, my card is still pretty gimped compared to all the features it had in XP).
Put it this way: would that Mac be running quite as smoothly if Dell had pre-installed their junk on it before you got it?
In your analysis you seems to forget one point: people want to run applications, not operating systems! Do a browser, a word processor, a music or video player really require much more than 512 Mb if ram right know? I don't think so.
The role of an operating system is to manage hardware resources and make them available to the applications that the user want to run. An OS that requires 1 Gb of ram to run a web browser that only require 250 Mb of ram to run properly is failing to do what it should. Improvement of hardware can lead to two things: more powerful computers OR cheaper and lighter computers, clearly consumers are now choosing the second option. I remember it was not long ago that my computer's RAM cost me around 100€, a significant part of the computer cost. Now I would not accept to pay more than 50€ for ram or even 20€ for an entry level machine.
A function of an OS is also to make hardware accessible. Changing the driver model so that older drivers won't work with the new version of the OS and making the new driver model so difficult to work with that it requires a major investment to develop drivers is counter productive. when the general buy a piece of hardware (scanner, printer, soundcard) they get a driver on a disk. If they buy a new computer the expect to just have to put that disk in and have the OS manage with it. If the OS don't because it can't work with the old driver and the OS manufacturer didn't include a compatible driver, it's the OS failing. Microsoft deciding to change the driver model and then expecting manufacturers and users to pick up the cost of the change in driver development or non functioning material is just crazy: MS wants to force changes in the driver model, then it's MS responsibility build a new driver for every piece of legacy hardware out there. If your bank decide to change their ATM system and you require a new bank card they will ensure you get a compatible card for free and in time or there will be outrage amongst the customers, why would it be different in the OS world.
I’ve been running Vista continuously since November 2006 on my Dell laptop, and the only irritation has been that I upgraded to Vista without uninstalling all the Dell crapware.. for months I got compatibility dialogs for software I couldn’t uninstall.
In a year and a half, I’ve rebooted (as opposed to sleep or hibernate) twice.. once to remove Dell crapware loaded as device drivers, and the other to install SP1. That’s pretty good availability for a development machine.
It is not churlish to say that XP’s quality has damaged Vista uptake.. with eight years of patching it is mature and stable. Vista’s problem is that it is late, early and irrelevant:
• Late because 2003 was the year to launch this operating system.
• Early because the next big upgrade is 64-bit and the end of memory swap-files.
• Irrelevant because Aero does not address any mass problems, but the Windows licensing makes PC’s expensive to administer
It's better, it's faster, it's all good and it runs on 64 bits processors. But, if you want to take advantage of it, you'll have to buy a brand new top-of-the line computer. Which will then run only slightly slower than your 10-yo kit running our previous crippled OS. And said previous OS on your new kit would litterally fly, but don't you dare and try it. Our new stuff is 64-bits, so it's better. OK, it's sluggish like hell and you need four times the amount of RAM to perform the same task, but hey, it's 64 bits. It's progress, kiddz! Some 64-bits OSes have been around for ages, but they are Open Source, which is bad. They might be fast and reliable, but that's irrelevant: they are not from MS, and we at MS are the best, so just upgrade your hardware, bend over and say thank you.
So, you're saying that the problem is hardware vendors for not supplying more memory, not Microsoft's fault for building a bloated OS that required far more overhead than any OS should demand?
Wrong. Vista is failing because most people don't need the extra features, and once you've stripped those out there's very little difference between Vista and XP - not enough to justify the extortionate price anyway. I used Vista for a couple of weeks before giving up, because it was incapable of copying a file across a network in less than 24 hours. This was fixed with SP1, but even then it's only truly workable with the search caching and security caching turned off. Apart from the neat Start button, it has nothing to offer over and above XP.
It's possible to dislike Vista for reasons other than speed and stability. It runs fine on my PC as well (dual core CPU, 2GB RAM), However, it's a pigging ugly and annoying OS to use. I don't want to go into display properties and get a big window with a paragraph of text explaining what "screensaver" and "wallpaper" are amongst all the settings. That's ugly, messy and completely pointless for anyone other than an absolute novice user. I want the simple one-window tabbed view that you get with XP that's quick to navigate around and doesn't involve multiple windows.
That's just one example of course, but I dislike Vista not because of speed or stability, but because it looks messy - albeit polished. XP is the opposite. It looks clean but dated and I'm afraid I'll take that over messy polish any day.
MacOS 10.5 manages with 512M, it's perhaps not as quick as it is on machine with 1G but it manages perfectly well. That said, most Apples these days come with 1M. And there's Linux as well, the latest versions also manage to do Vista-like eye candy in 512M. So does Vista do that means it needs 2G?
"These scam artists were still under-equipping their systems with memory, choking off the processor and gutting the performance."
Er, no. Perhaps the correct conclusion is that Vista's a bloated piece of crap and Microsoft understated the minimum requirements to OEMs (see various Register stores). You can be sure that those machines taking part in that marketing weren't kitted out with a memory, hard drive, and processor spec that were considered normal on home machines until Vista came along.
Er Gavin? When exactly did Microsoft carry the baton for innovation? Uless you where referring to innovation in interpreting business law.
And Mike. I have been using XP for a years on various different hardware and it works fine. I guess I chose the hardware well. but the point about Vista is not does it work but does it work well enough to justify the money required to set it. The cost and extra hardware might be cheap to some people but can you make a convincing case for me to spend the money on upgrading my stuff and buying Vista instead of keeping what I've got, which does everything I need, and spending the money something more important like strip clubs and Jack Daniels?
Article reads: "Microsoft's normally bombastic marketing has begun blaming Windows Vista's poor uptake on the modesty of its own message"
Perhaps we should plagiarise the statement about some poor politico many years ago to read: "A modest message - with much to be modest about".
I don't think PC vendors are to blame if the operating system this year doesn't require any more memory than the operating system last year, meaning that they can stick with the same amount of memory and either sell for cheaper or put something more expensive elsewhere. If you draw a chart of PC prices between 1996-2002 and follow the curve then you'll probably find that general market prices have dropped more quickly than ever before, especially in real terms.
Re: "The whole of [Microsoft] is better than the perception", it couldn't possibly be worse. They may face a perception problem in that people are reluctant to use their technology if it is reasonable to avoid it because they view the whole enterprise as an extortion scam, but that doesn't mean that better PR is the answer. Acting more responsibly and showing humility in technological decisions would be a good start.
'Ozzie, inventor of the hated Lotus Notes and now driving Microsoft's "software plus services" strategy...'
Says it all. I'm sure there are still some kool-aid drinking Notes admins who still love the thing... but email system should not equal application platform (MS tried promoting that route in Ex2K, and thank god it's mostly died off - get a proper DMS/intranet/Sharepoint if you must).
"Microsoft has a perception problem not a problem as an innovator."
MS has never been an innovator but that has never been a problem. They see Vista in a different way to everyone else. Who has the perception problem?
"... they [open source community] will be a bit perplexed when they see the best way to run what they do is on our infrastructure"
I would be outright astonished. I do not have any Vista capable machines. My last upgrade cycle reduced power consumption and noise because the hardware was already fast enough. A bunch of cunning adverts is not going to slim Vista down to the point where it leaves sufficient resource available for my software. MS are promising Windows 7 will Vista with a new name (delayed until there are a significant number of existing machines that are really Vista Capable). MS could be waiting a while as people are looking harder and power consumption. Do I see Vista for Atoms?
There are a couple of easy ways MS can get my software to run well on Window 8. They can choose between MS-BSD, or the Colour-Rectangles-Waving-Flag-Linux distribution. MS can support their users' legacy apps with XP-for-virtual-machines (unless they go for Samba+Wine ;-).
You said: "Fact is, Vista works. Vista is stable. Vista is fast. If you want to blame someone, blame Dell, HP, or whoever built your PC. They screwed you, not Microsoft"
Yeah, how do you compare how fast the thing is (Vista)? You run it on the same computer were you run the old one (XP). And it is slow.
Maybe you think that the software speed is relative, I mean run XP on a average 2001 computer, it is fast. Run Vista on the average computer of 2007, it is fast. But I like it to compare on the same hardware. It is slower.
Look at the Leopard. MacOSX will be faster *on the same hardware*
Look at Linux. It has the same speed on the same hardware, just more features every year. Heck, I even run full desktop effects (see Compiz) on the cheapest laptop bought in 2003, with 3% CPU usage. This is the meaning of fast.
Get the facts! ;)
But for me its not that Vista is unstable, its that it gives me nothing over XP, except window edges I can see through. I still just want to do a bit of web, a bit of email, play a game or two, and type a letter or two. I don't need two gigs to do any of that ( unless I really feel the need to look through the edge of my window or be constantly asked if I'm sure I want a program to run). Vista is very expensive, requires a huge hardware upgrade to work anything like the previous version, and gives no improvements I actually need or want.
"What I've signed up to do is take this show on the road and make the public understand these technologies aren't born full grown."
He's right. At Microsoft, they are born half-baked.
And 'Mike' - blaming everyone else just doesn't work. It's not the fault of Nvidia, or stupid users, or OEMs or hardware vendors. It Microsoft's fault. If you want to build a fast machine and have it slowed down to XP speeds by running Vista, which is what you appear to be saying, go ahead. At least 'scam artists' and 'jackasses' are not screwing you - you are screwing yourself.
Ubuntu Linux runs JUST fine if you have a machine built right.
I've been running Ubuntu Linux for nearly a year, and I've had far fewer problems
with it than I had with Windows XP during its first 3 years.
Do you know why? Because I built my machine properly.
....blah... 2GB... blah... jackass vendor... blah.. MS screwing you the consumer.
There's no secret to the system I built. 2 gigabytes of memory isn't that expensive.
A semi-decent video card isn't expensive either. But these jackasses are screwing you left and right. Nvidia should have had stable open source drivers along with the other hardware vendors, and the OEMs should have put more RAM in their systems. It's hard to blame Canonical when vendors decided to stagnate and screw you. Fact is, Ubuntu works. Ubuntu is stable. Ubuntu is fast. Ubuntu is FREE (as free beer and freedom). If you want to blame someone, blame Dell, HP, or whoever built you PC for not providing a free alternative to MS shite,
They screwed you, along with Microsoft. Put blame where blame is due, and
just go, "Oh, my system runs wonderful with Ubuntu! Even though it's got the same
memory as the system I bought 5 years ago had!"
Ok i can understand that bigger better and more powerful is...progress (comma key broken again) but I prefer progress to be greater efficiency.
Yes you have a built machine...yes you are right about drivers....but i'd still prefer to see an operating system that rather than exponentially increasing its hardware demands for very little extra benefit is programmed more efficiently so even if you throw more hardware at it the resources are left for YOU to use doing what YOU need to...and not just keeping the OS ticking over.
Im not saying i want something that runs on 256Kb of ram and a 486....but Vista is just not all that efficient given the resources it requires and how much it uses just keeping itself alive.
That would be true only if you ignore bloat. Meanwhile in reality, you see the OpenSource OS's and even OS X get leaner and better performing with each release, while Windows does the reverse. It SHOULD be about the users - the majority of people want something that is simple to use, quick, lets them run the programs they use most -and- looks good. Does it require a 3Gb install to do that? Microsofts insistence on support "old" applications is their major downfall I think - there *are* some nice ideas in Vista, but it's all choked up with compatibility issues and so many layers of technology the average person doesn't need to know about, nor will ever care about. That's why Windows requires such high-spec machines. This is why the Leopard can run perfectly smoothly on a relatively low-spec laptop. Apple don't care so much about backwards support. Now this is not always a good thing either (forcing all your users to update their software), but I really think Windows would benefit from a reset. Throw away everything; launch a sleek, small new OS with no backwards compatibility and a UI that doesn't require game-running video cards just to draw a desktop. Personally I don't think there should be a Windows 7 - there should be something else entirely.
Undoubtedly I'll get called an MS Fanboy, but I have no problems with Vista.
I've always built my own machines to high specs as I play a games that need a lot of power, and use video editing software that needs RAM and CPU time.
I got Vista when it was first released, and installed it on 1 of my machines. I'll admit that the total lack of drivers from hardware and software manufacturers was criminal. But how much of that is Microsoft's fault? The 3rd party developers new that Vista had been coming along for a long time. Did MS fail to hand out specs to these people?
I've only had a couple of crashes since release, and traced them back to video-driver issues (So nothing new there then).
But the average person on the street shouldn't have to build their own machine just to run Vista.. I bought a cheap laptop recently as I needed one in a hurry when I went on holiday as I didn't want to risk any of my 'proper' laptops. I ordered and Xp laptop, and they supplied a Vista-home model instead.
Lets be clear: Vista Home is a piece of crap. It is nearly as bad as Windows ME. And the laptop is not up to the job, with its single core CPU and 1GB of RAM.
If the general public are installing Vista on pieces of rubbish like this, then they are going to have problems.
Yes, Vista Ultimate is bloated, and uses too many resources. But it is also secure (when you set it up right), and very very stable. But again, the average user isn't going to do these things and is going to have a bad experience.
People seem to have very short memories. All these comments and problems were said when XP was released as well. People were complaining that it was crap compared to Win 98. Now once Vista arrives, XP is suddenly the greatest product on Earth.
I'm not going to say "I've had less problems with Vista than I did with XP" because it isn't true. I never had any problems with XP either. Or 98, or 95, or 3.11, or 2000. That is because I know how to take care of my machines. So while other people are getting trojans and virusii, and getting phished seven ways from Sunday, I don't have problems.
But for the average Joe on the street? Forgeddaboudit.
"We have two problems," Ozzie patiently explained. "[First] A number of internal properties we've been selling as enterprise servers and wanted to create a service infrastructure usable by our search assets and the online assets, and [second] that our server business customers have SLA requirements that are substantial,"
Read: "First, our software is crappy and unreliable, and second, every sensible IT guy around knows that." That sounds like serious problems to me. Nothing that a couple more grands in the bribing department can't fix though. After all, people just have to "build the right computer" to run our OS... wait, maybe some people have perfectly good kit that they don't want to discard. Maybe these people will find out that there are OSes that can run on 5-years-old machines, and still offer more functionalities than we ever dreamt of. Sodd it, we'll just have our chief engineer saying we're the bestests, that wil be sorted.
Well, it worked with at least one (1) fanboi. Who, unsurprisingly, focussed on self-made desktop kit while the MS PR stunt highlighted in the article was mainly directed at servers. Go figure...
Penguin because it's the closest match for DragonFly.
Thanks, for this story it'll make me smile all day long. I wonder though, I know I'm bored by Microsoft, having sat through sales and marketing presentations over the past few years driven by enthusiastic Microsofties who love their company and think their products are great, and coming away thinking, well how does this really help my business, my customers business and my life, because mostly it just doesn't.
I wonder how many other people are just getting bored of the Brand.
And thanks Mike for your rant, that made me laugh as well.
Thank you for supporting Microsoft at this difficult time. Nice to find a customer who understands. There's nothing wrong with Vista; the problem is the computers people actually own and buy. There's nothing wrong with the Vista video DRM architecture; the problem is our hardware partners deliberately put bugs in their drivers to make us look bad.
Vista's not a dog. It runs just as fast as XP, as long as you give it twice the CPU and about four times the RAM.
Not that I'm complaining. Hardy Heron runs just fine on all those 'old' machines that people keep giving me 'cos they aren't good enough for Vista, and unlike XP I know I'll still have security updates for at least the next 2 and a half years.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
