On Oct 28, 9:19 pm, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> There's No Doubt: Vista Sucks
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | I don't know what's going on at Microsoft. They just can't seem to get
> | anything right. Don't believe me? Read on...
> `----
> http://blogs.pcworld.com/tipsandtweaks/archives/005783.html
Keep in mind that Microsoft may be trying to do what it did with
Windows ME. When Judge Penfield-Jackson ordered Microsoft to make
some changes in Windows 98 to reduce the bundling, Microsoft released
a compliant version that was so horrible that nobody wanted it.
The EU court ordered Microsoft to make a "Bare Bones" version of
Windows that didn't have Media and other anticompetitive bundleware
included. Microsoft complied by releasing Vista Home Basic and adding
so many restrictions, limitations, and disabled functionality that
everybody hates it - which is exactly what Microsoft wanted. So no
Microsoft gets to sell upgrades to the OEMs, to corporate customers,
and to end-users.
Microsoft complied with the letter of the law in the EU court order,
but they also defeated the spirit and intent of the order by
lobotomizing it.
Appearantly, all versions of Vista are the same compiled code, but
different versions have different functionality activated or
deactivated. Yet for some reason, you can't go to a store and buy a
machine with Windows Home Premium, call the manufacturer, give THEM
your credit card for order for $20 and upgrade to Vista Business. You
have to buy a box and go through the mechanics of installing
something, and pay at least an extra $100 to do the upgrade.
> Related:
>
> An Open Letter to Microsoft: Re-Release Windows XP
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | It's time to sober up on Windows Vista. This just isn't working out,
> | and your users are getting frustrated to the point where they're souring
> | on Windows altogether. In case you haven't seen some of the more
> | noteworthy blog posts on this topic, I refer you to Chris Pirillo,
> | Scot's Newsletter, or Spend Matters. Or check out the recent bug
> | reports regarding product activation and security flaws. This is all
> | stuff I managed to dredge up that was written yesterday.
> |
> | People are unhappy with Vista. Really unhappy. And though I know Microsoft
> | has its own form of Steve Jobs' reality distortion field, it certainly
> | can't keep you from seeing at least some of the sobering sales figures and
> | the crush of disappointing reviews of Vista. I don't want to dredge up all
> | the reasons people are unhappy with Vista in this letter. I want to talk
> | about what you ought to do stop a mass migration to Linux and the Mac.
> | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It's very likely that Microsoft has received similar letters from HP,
Dell, Lenovo, Acer, Gateway, E-Machines, and numerous other OEMs,
because Microsoft did allow these OEMs to continue selling Windows XP
- as an "upgrade" to Vista.
>From what I can tell, Microsoft lets these OEMS upgrade to Vista
Business edition, at which point they have the option of installing
either Windows XP Professional, or Vista Business Edition, without
telling Microsoft which was installed. This gives them the ability to
claim the licenses as Vista licenses, even though what was shipped was
XP.
Some OEMs have said that "Most" of the machines they are selling are
still being shipped with Windows XP. To me, that would mean a minimum
of 50%, but that could be as little as 20% if you figure that Vista
sales may be evenly split 20% for Home Basic, 20% for Home Premium,
20% for Business, 19% for Ultimate, and 21% for XP. Does anybody
think that might be the situation here?
> `----
>
> http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/18428/an-open-letter-to-microsoft-re...
>
> An open letter to Bill Gates
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Dear Bill Gates
> |
> | Give me back my weekend.
Maybe all of those weekends over the last 30 years that we have had to
work unpaid overtime to compensate for the flaws and maneuvers of MS-
BASIC, MS-DOS, Windows 1.0 through 3.1, Windows NT 3.1, Windows 95A
and Windows 98 First Edition.
Microsoft did have a few winners. MS-DOS 3.3, Windows 95B, Windows 98
SE, Windows 2000, and Windows XP with SP2 - after 18 months, those
were pretty good. But even those were attempts to "Catch Up" to Unix
and Linux. Linux had the reliability, security, flexibility, true
preemptive multitasking, reliable overlapping Windows, and other
features of Windows XP - back in 1994, almost a YEAR before Windows 95
was released.
But Microsoft had one thing that Linux didn't. Microsoft OWNED the
OEM distribution channel. When OEMs were tempted by Linux, Netscape,
and other pro-comptitive options, Microsoft "persuaded" them into
excluding these other competitor products from the marketplace. Court
records made public during the contempt of court hearings, the
antitrust hearings, and several civil trials shows the kinds of
pressure that was used. Microsoft executives even admitted to acts
that were ruled by federal court judged to be fraud, extortion,
blackmail, and sabotage, and obstruction of justice.
Microsoft fought a good hard legal battle, paid for carefully
negotiated settlements which let them continue to do exactly what they
had been doing that was illegal, and had the records sealed so that
the records and testimony couldn't be used against them in court in
future cases - or posted to usenet and public web sites.
The exhibits submitted into evidence, even those were not sealed at
the time of trial, were far more damning than the testimony of the
witnesses or the arguments of the attorneys. E-mails from Bill Gates,
Steve Ballmer, Steve Alchin, and Nathan Myrvold, to each other, openly
discussing acts that they admitted in their e-mails would be illegal
and/or would require some extra effort on the part of the legal
department.
> | I bought a new Windows Vista laptop -- and
> | that's when the trouble began.
> | [...]
> | My conclusion? For all the expensive and much-extended gestation,
> | Vista was not ready for commercial release.
Keep in mind that two versions - Vista Home Basic and Vista Home
Premium, were not SUPPOSED to be for COMMERCIAL use. The license
expressly forbids numerous acts ranging from use related to business
activities or consulting, to use as a Virtualized client.
Ironically, the Vista Business edition permits the uses of Vista as a
virtualized client, but the OEM license forbids the OEMS from
packaging Vista as a virtualized client.
> | And, just so you know,
> | I've never once had a comparably horrible experience with the
> | Google boys.
One of the nice things about OSS is that we don't have to time
everything for a big "Revenue Hit". With OSS used in Linux
distributions, upgrades, enhancements, and bug fixes are released as
they are available, usually at no extra charge. New versions try to
be backward compatible with older versions, because they aren't trying
to force you into an expensive upgrade.
Microsoft's SEC filing shows that Microsoft is aware that Vista isn't
going as well as they had hoped. They have very carefully blended
their XP numbers in with their Vista numbers to remain Sarbanes-Oxley
compliant, while still being able to tell the general press that "It's
all Vista".
Microsoft is being attacked on all fronts. Mac is a smashing success,
and Microsoft's OEMs are jealously looking at Apple's 60% growth rates
and 40-50% profit margins compared to their 20% growth over some of
the worst quarters in several years, and profit margins that have
already eroded ot paper-thin, some are even having to subsidize their
PC business again.
I would guess that those OEMs are beginning to look at measures almost
as drastic as those taken by IBM. Sell the PC operations to offshore
companies, get out of the Windows PC business, and make some
Workstations and Laptops that Microsoft can't control.
IBM still makes workstations, but those machines can be purchased with
either Windows or Linux pre-installed. The windows machines are
frequently used as management consoles for server rooms - and running
Linux.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2007/02/an_open_...http://tinyurl.com/2tlc8w
|
|
