Windows Vista vs Windows Mojave

  Managing ed 15:02 29 Jul 2008
Locked

In a fit of hubristic PR, Microsoft reckons that it's proved that the 'problem' with Windows Vista is all down to perception. Of course, that self-same 'perception' is largely down to Microsoft's determination to get every man and his dog (of a PC) to migrate to Vista, but the company got loads of XP-using Vista haters to watch a video 'Mojave' - its brand new operating system. Of course, Mojave was, in fact, vista.

Full story: click here

I'm not sure what to think of this. On the one hand, it is true that there's a bandwagon of Vista hating that even those who've never used it are happy to jump on. But on the other hand, this does seem like a particularly facile and, well, spiteful way to prove a point. And watching a video is no way to judge an OS.

What do you think?

  JYPX 20:05 29 Jul 2008

They (Microsoft)are wasting their time. Perception?
That might have been the case 12 months ago when they could could get away with claiming, "it's all about drivers, or it's all about software - it's gonna be just fine". Millions of pc owners, company IT managers, technology journalists, all over the world have given Vista a try - having waited for the software, the drivers, the service pack, and they still think that Microsoft have misjudged what is required from an operating system.
It is now blindingly obvious what they need to do - make sure that the next OS is an attractive proposition for all Windows users, and to achieve that they need to listen, listen and listen.
The comment made here by al7478 rings true with me - I think most people wanted to like Vista and the the common sentiment is not hate, it is disappointment. They are not in trouble yet, but they have to get the message, and quickly.

  Pineman100 14:36 02 Aug 2008

I'm a Vista hater, and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

I'm absolutely fed up with the game of leapfrog that goes on between software and hardware manufacturers. Intel build a faster processor, so Microsoft make their OS fatter and heavier, negating all the benefits that the faster processor brought. Then the whole cycle starts all over again.

My computer is six years old. It runs XP Home with its hands tied behind its back - trouble-free and hassle-free.

If I "upgraded" (a highly questionable term) to Vista, this computer would grind to a halt. So I'd need a new machine - and for what benefit? A slightly prettier interface and a slightly faster search function?

If Microsoft really want to impress me, and seduce me into buying a new OS, then they'll make Windows 7 slimmer, lighter and more capable than Vista.

And I'm not talking about perception - I'm talking about real life.

  Forum Editor 17:09 02 Aug 2008

I haven't had a single problem.

The reason, of course, is that all my computers exceed the recommended system requirements, almost all of my software is recent edition, and I beta tested Vista for a year before it launched - I had it easy.

I like Vista, and I liked Windows XP when that first came on the scene, even when lots of people were saying they would upgrade (from Windows 98) over their dead bodies. I would hazard a guess that most of those people were using XP within a year of launch.

I'm not typical - I work with computers for a living, and I am a big Microsoft fan - there, I've admitted it. I've never understood the fashion for slagging off a company because it's big and successful, although I'm the first to admit that at times the Redmond giant is its own worst enemy. That comes about because there are people in the company who believe they can d nothing wrong, that consumers hould only be told what is considered good for them, and that there's something shameful in admitting 'we dropped a clanger'.

The company dropped a clanger when Vista first launched by being too slow to acknowledge that there were plenty of people who were having very real problems. The truth about life is that it's no good being right all the time unless enough people accept it - you need to carry the body of the kirk with you. It's all about perceptions, and a perception developed that Vsta was fatally flawed in some way. Once that happens it's no good claiming that it's someone else's fault - a lack of third-party drivers is the excuse of choice - you must recognise the problem and address it, even if it's not your fault.

Millions of people are using Vista quite happily, but those aren't the people who influence the potential upgraders - they listen to the minority (and it is a minority, even if it's a sizeable one) who have exerienced problems. We see people in the forum asking for help with downgrading a new computer from Vista to Windows XP. That's not because their new machine doesn't work with Vista - it was designed to do so - it's either because people are worried about Vista, and are not prepared to give it a chance, or because they've discovered that their favourite freeware application version 1.0 won't work - it's a compatibility thing.

That problem - compatibility - isn't going to be solved by waiting for the next version of Windows, so what next - stay with Windows XP forever, or at some point face the fact that software ages? The fact is that unless the developers are prepared to produce new versions there comes a time when you move on.

Managing ed's assessment of the Mojave experiment as being facile is right on the money, the trick they played is a reinforcement - if any was needed - that Microsoft has much to learn when it comes to handling a marketing problem. Pull cheap stunts like this on your potential customers and you will reap a terrible harvest. You're insulting their intelligence, and your clever little trick will come back and bite you on the bum.

  Forum Editor 18:42 02 Aug 2008

Source code to software companies is like the recipe to Coca Cola - it's their major asset, and to disclose it in its entirety to a third party is unthinkable.

Microsoft would never disclose all its Windows source code, and nobody would expect it, but there are sections of the code which would help third-party developers to make their own software - a media player for instance- work beter with Windows Vista. A modern Windws version will contain tens of millions of lines of code - code which has taken years of work and billions of dollars to develop and test; you don't just hand the lot over to anyone who wants it, and in Microsoft's case there has been - perhaps understandably - a degree of reticence to 'open up' as it were. Nevertheless, some sharing of information has to take place - Microsoft is in the business of developing code that will run in hundreds of thousands of different hardware and software environments, and the only way to make that happen without too many hitches is to have the third parties on board.

Drivers are a well-known problem, and many's the Windows installation that has fallen at this fence. Hardware manufacturers are in business to sell devices, and don't necessarily want to divert valuable human resources to write drivers that will enable a five-year old printer to run in Vista - they would far rather sell everyone a brand new, Vista compatibe replacement printer. Microsoft has had problems with manufacturers over this, and some companies have been far worse than others. Writing an operating system that can cope with every printer, scanner, camera, etc., out there is a nightmare, and it can only be done by including a huge driver database and hoping that makers will play ball with drivers that aren't in the O/S. hat doesn't always happen, and the opoerating system gets the blame: "Vista won't recognise my ten year old printer, therefore it's a bad operating system".

  Forum Editor 18:45 02 Aug 2008

for the typos in my post(s).I'm typing in conditions that are far from ideal, and I'm pressed for time. In short, I'm rushing, and mistakes are littering my text.

I'll try to do better later.

  Forum Editor 09:02 03 Aug 2008

Microsoft provides software companies with all the help and information they need to write drivers, it has always been the case.

With the arrival of Vista however, the company began to harden its policy with regard to driver signing, and no kernel mode software without a digital signature will load in a 64bit Vista version. The prime motivation for this new policy was the danger posed by rootkits. If a software company wants to write Vista drivers now it must obtain something called a 'Publisher Identity Certificate' from Microsoft first. The certificate is free, but in addition the software company must buy a VeriSign Class 3 Commercial Software Publisher Certificate.

This is all designed to make Vista more secure, and to reassure users that drivers are from a trusted source, but of course it may not be welcomed by all and sundry, and could be seen as a deterrent to writing new drivers by some of the smaller hardware companies.

  anskyber 10:22 03 Aug 2008

It may be nice to see an OS without the bloat but it is unlikely to happen.

The next MS OS will be a version, an evolution even, of Vista. I share the views of the FE and like him I have had an almost flawless experience with Vista since I did an upgrade install over XP in February 2007.

The truth is Vista has got a poor reputation which has come in part from an arogant stance adopted by MS. People are scared about the reputation of Vista without often any experience of using it. XP is excellent but a bit clunky compared with Vista, for many it does not matter, after all it's only an OS.

  Forum Editor 10:30 03 Aug 2008

Most of the citicisms I read about Vista are full of words and phrases that have been culled from other opinions - a good deal of it is anecdotal, rather than being based n any personal experience.

Somebody fires up a Vista installation for the first time, sees a few unfamiliar messages, and thinks "Here we go,they were right, this software is rubbish". I've found that once people give Vista (and themselves) a chance they start relaxing, and before you know it they're hapily working away. It's a little like the current panic over the economy - if everyone didn't drink in the dramatic media pronouncements about the end of the world being nigh we might all find that things aren't so bad after all.

  Simsy 15:46 03 Aug 2008

without any substantial evidence, just a hunch, that the vast majority of those who actively dislike it, (or indeed actively like it), are, like many of those who grace these pages, somewhat blessed with a touch of "geek"...

The vast majority of folk who make use of a computer do so becasue of the applications, not the operating system; "Word" works the same whether the PC concerned is running XP or Vista. I know of several folk (half a dozen or so), who would not be unhappy to be described as "computer illierate" who all have newish PCs with Vista. None of them, (and I mean none!), have had to come for me for help with Vista.

That's because they don't "use" Vista, they "use" WORD.

Sure Vista looks a bit different, but they start the PC, fire up WORD, and away they go!

It's only those of us who wnat to know a bit more about what's going on, and who tewak a bit that have an issue.

For what it's worth, I have both XP, (to which I was a latecomer, only about 2.5 years ago), and Vista on a laptop, bought this Feb.

There are things I don't like about Vista, but only when I'm messing with it... not when I'm doing something with an application!

Regards,

Simsy

  johndrew 16:16 03 Aug 2008

One of the major criticisms of MS is their continual re-issuing of the OS. This combined with updating and correcting of errors/flaws makes the software very expensive and a thorn when it comes to older software being read/used on PCs with newer MS offerings.

This could have been avoided to a greater extent if MS had concentrated on the operating system as a separate entity and allowed others (or other teams within MS?) to have produced `standalone` programs to perform other functions. The philosophy I`m thinking of is that of the open source community - Linux and similar or Amiga.

This latter has only moved through a very small number of releases in well over 20 years and, although some releases have required hardware updates, the basic OS has not changed as greatly as that of MS. Many programs and games that ran on the original Amiga OS will run on the later versions as well without a great deal of fiddling to achieve it.

As for Amiga updates, there are virtually none by comparison to the weekly inputs from MS.

Perhaps MS missed a trick when they chose to attempt to become all things for all men. The software has improved - most greatly perhaps with the release of XP - but has a nasty habit of taking the odd step backwards; perhaps ME and Vista are examples of this.

Could it be that the customer base is so large that MS has needed to become deaf to the varied and conflicting wants and needs voiced or possibly the experts have decided they know what is best for everyone and simply gone their own way to a greater extent? I can`t answer this but feel that MS really does turn its deaf ear when it suits; an example could be the rejection of the public`s request to extend the sale of XP.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Oppo A9 2020 Review

The year's best animated short Hair Love is finally online

Mac Pro 2019 release date, price, features & specs

Cdiscount : la PS4 Pro 1 To + 5 jeux à moins de 400 €