While the public's attention seems to be swinging toward Windows 7 (the next iteration of the OS)—a topic I'll address in the weeks ahead—the fact of the matter is that Vista remains. And it seems that the OS now has two distinct groups of users. One group happily uses Vista, with few concerns or complaints. In fact, many of them are baffled by all the grumbling. The other group is the fist-shaking Vista bashers who condemn each and every flaw the OS exhibits.
The latter group is by far the most vocal and easily drowns out the former group. Its complaints stem from the anti-Microsoft backlash, which reflects dissatisfaction with the company's history, business practices, tactics, and bogus announcements. Much of the disgruntlement, however, can be attributed Vista itself—and the poor marketing job done by Microsoft.
I mention the bogus announcements above because, at some point, you do get a little tired of Microsoft making exaggerated promises and then never coming close to delivering the goods. In the case of Vista, it has to do with the three "pillars" that were announced early on. The OS really delivered on only one of the pillars, and that pillar was nothing but Windows dressing: Aero, the resource hog and performance sapper.
With the "pillars" in mind, I decided to take a look at the 11 reasons why Vista remains on shaky ground:
1) Market confusion. From the beginning, everyone moaned about the fact that there were simply too many versions of the OS for sale. Who needs all the variations? It's stupid—plain and simple. What you want is the one best version, not a slew of namby-pamby ones. This happened because the folks at Microsoft know only how to merchandise and, seemingly, not how to market.
2) Code size. I've got two words for you: TOO BIG. Enough said.
3) Missing components. Yes, WinFS, the promised file system and a core pillar of Vista, isn't there. The promises regarding the development of this file system go back to 1991. And Microsoft cannot make it a reality? Why?
4) Laptop battery-life drain. This was supposed to be fixed with special code and hybrid hard disks (HHD). Still, users have to resort to expensive silicon drives.
5) HHD fiasco. I'm still irked about being told by the HD industry that the benefits of the new generation of hard drives will "make people flock to Vista." That was over two years ago, and suddenly there's silence about the whole thing. One of these days, someone will tell me what really happened. My guess: It never worked correctly, and no one could make it work.
6) Bogus Vista-capable stickers. Microsoft's "Windows Vista capable" campaign was an incredible marketing botch. Computers were sold with an indication that they were "Windows Vista capable" when they were not. This did wonders for goodwill.
7) Missing drivers. It seems incredible that all of the Windows drivers that worked with XP did not necessarily work with Vista. How does that happen?
8) Conflicting advice. There was no consistent advice for users about implementation, and Microsoft did nothing to help. Some people said that you should get a new computer only with Vista preloaded and not upgrade. Others said upgrades were fine. Others upgraded and complained. Microsoft should have put up a specialized Web site that could test machines remotely and tell users whether it would be a good idea—or not—to upgrade. A promotional/test CD-ROM that could boot Vista (like those Knoppix Linux disks) would have been a good idea, too.
9) XP mania. You'd think that the world was in love with Windows XP. Everyone wants to keep it on the market, and this makes Vista look even worse. What's more, there were far too many reports about people reverting to XP after an "experience" with Vista. If Microsoft had the testing service that I mention above in place, this would never have happened.
10) Mediocre rollout. Unlike other rollouts of important Windows products, Microsoft did not put on much of a show with Vista. While there were some weird posters placed in subways and maybe a few TV commercials, none of it compared with the rollouts from a few years back, where the company got worldwide attention. By comparison, the company seemed almost sheepish or embarrassed by Vista, something that was also reflected in the recent lackluster rollout of Server 2008—a total snooze. This sent the wrong signals to users and may have made them hypercritical.
11) Performance. You're not supposed to deliver a new operating system that's been in development for more than four years yet performs worse than the previous OS. Performance should be at the top, not the bottom, of the to-do list. You get the sense that Microsoft just piles code on top of code and somewhere in the middle of it all is MS-DOS 1.0.
I could probably put another dozen items on this list. The point is that it's a big list already. With all the resources in the world at Microsoft's disposal, you have to wonder why the company cannot get everything right even once.
I maintain my opinion that at least the 64 bit business version is working very fine for me. My notebook came with a 32 bit home premium and there I got a bug that the explorer would crash when I tried to put a symbol into the quick-start bar, it was horrible of course until it somehow fixed itself, otherwise it's working fine for me as well. Although I do believe that people who buy 32 bit despite having a 64 bit CPU deserve all the punishment they can get, so I applaud Microsoft's attempt to show them.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I blame any possible insanity in this post on the headache I have due to my cold...
Last weekend I finished cleaning up my second Vista laptop. This is payback to some dads with woodworking skills who helped me build a play fort for my kids.
Anyway, I just wanted to say I hate Vista. What a bloated, tottering blight of an operating system. One laptop took close to nine minutes from power-on to being usable. What the hell is that about? What, exactly, is MS loading into memory for all that time? And the UAC thing is just laughable. Does anyone not turn it off?
One more irritation I must rant about. What the heck is HP thinking, shipping hardware with a hundred little custom bits of bloatware clinging to their laptops like barnacles on a tanker? I forget the name, but there was one little piece of junk that wouldn't shut off even after I'd shut off its service in services.msc and told it to stop loading at startup in msconfig. I had to uninstall the app, and I wasn't sure even that would work, given how tenacious it was about hogging processor cycles and memory.
Anyway. Sorry. Excuse me. I just needed to rant. Cleaning up a neighbor's Vista machine makes me want to smoke crack and set my hair on fire.
Anyway. Sorry. Excuse me. I just needed to rant. Cleaning up a neighbor's Vista machine makes me want to smoke crack and set my hair on fire.
My future now looks much brighter after my sister decided to wipe out Vista on her laptop. I won't be losing the rest of my hair... at least not in the near future.
Anyway, I just wanted to say I hate Vista. What a bloated, tottering blight of an operating system. One laptop took close to nine minutes from power-on to being usable. What the hell is that about? What, exactly, is MS loading into memory for all that time?
Could that be due to the bloat ware you mentioned later or was that a Pentium 166 laptop?
Mine doesn't even take half as long when it's in power saving mode.
SP1 also speeds the process up significantly.
Originally Posted by Lemur
And the UAC thing is just laughable. Does anyone not turn it off?
On this I agree, it's one of the first things I did/do in Vista, once it's off it doesn't bother you anymore though.
Originally Posted by Lemur
One more irritation I must rant about. What the heck is HP thinking, shipping hardware with a hundred little custom bits of bloatware clinging to their laptops like barnacles on a tanker?
Perhaps they get paid for spreading all that bloatware?
Re: Piling on Vista
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Lemur
Bookmarks