Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ mlw ] on Thursday 11 January 2007 13:47 \__
>
>> Has anyone looked at what Vista is supposed to be? Has anyone seen
>> *anything* new? Seriously, *anything*?
>>
>> Between Eric F's "Windows Home Server" (Which, by the way, Eric, you need
>> to get back to me about the Linux version development specs and
>> contract.) Or the Yahoo instant messager nonsense, I am left feeling WTF?
>> What is Vista supposed to be?
>>
>> Most of the "new" visual features are nothing more than adding existing
>> effects and techniques to the OS level GUI because 3d acceleration is now
>> guaranteed to be present. While admittedly cool to look at, a tremendous
>> waste of resources without any tangible benefits. Do you need that in the
>> server room? Do you really need that in the office? It makes
>> run-of-the-mill PCs more expensive.
>>
>> Lets not even get started about how f*&^ked the DRM/CRAP stuff is.
>>
>> Like a broken clock being right twice a day, Microsoft has occasionally
>> produced something interesting in the past, albeit, usually by copying
>> true innovation and adding something small, like the "start" button on
>> Windows, but Vista doesn't even deliver on that level.
>>
>> Vista seems like nothing more than XP with a 3D accelerated GUI, and DRM
>> up your ass.
>>
>> Am I missing something? Someone please give me something that Vista can
>> claim as really original and "INNOVA~1."
>>
>> Yup, maybe this is the year that people start seeing M$ for what it is, a
>> burden on the computer industry, and switch to Macintosh or Linux. I
>> don't see much choice, Vista won't run on most current PCs anyway.
>
> Microsoft /did/ have some innovation planned, but none of it materialised.
> One guy who is actually bullish about MSFT explained it rather well.
>
> Microsoft's New Look in 2007
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Well, XP lasted five years, so a Vista world could very well be
> | five to seven years from today, so that is a long time and a
> | lot can happen to predict. But Microsoft basically proved that
> | it was incapable of producing a new release. Nearly all of the
> | goals of Vista were not achieved. They kept cutting back, kept
> | cutting back, and so this is like -- Vista today is more like SP4.
> `----
>
This is one of MS's main problems, they can't wait that long for the next
big upgrade because they arn't getting enough big hits to sustain
themselves. MS is a huge monster and its not getting enough to eat.
Xbox360, might have been a help had it not been badly designed. (sorry, I
was going to say that in a nicer way, but my concience wouldn't let me).
That music player that had Apple.inc quaking in theirs boots, oops I mean
Not quaking in their boots. It didn't amount to anything, even though it
was apparently a pretty decent device.
MS are having failure after failure. I suspect that I know why though, I
suspect you all do too. The proof of that is that they did not actually
have a Vista at all, what ever meagre effort they had put in to future
designs was no where near enough, because just a year before the initial
planned release they put out a message to programmers to help them with the
security side.
MS will get a bit of a boost from Vista, that's inevitable, but it can't
possibly sustain them on it's own.
But those five years have been wasted, by now a good team of programmers
could have done a MS Win from the ground up, even if compatibility had to
be left behind because the new properly layered design made it
incompatible. It could have been done and of all companies who could have
persuaded their loyal fans to move to the new system, MS probably could
have done it.
Now though, I really can't see a long term goal for MS that will satisfy the
marketeers.
|
|
