Windows Vista vs Windows Mojave

  Managing ed 15:02 29 Jul 2008

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?

  Forum Editor 17:59 03 Aug 2008

Microsoft operating systems are produced by a separate team of developers. Office, and other Microsoft software is all developed by separate teams, but obviously there has to be a constant cross-flow of information to ensure that everything works smoothly with everything else.

The problems out in the userbase invariably arise when people start running all kinds of third-party applications and tools, plus hundreds of different hardware devices. Beta testing programmes can iron out thousands of the incompatibility problems, but thousands more will come to light when you have the operating system installed in five million machines. That's only half the story - once you've found the problems you have to solve them, and that often requires a good deal of cooperation from hundreds of different software and hardware companies.

Like any other business, Microsoft exists to make a profit, and it will only continue to do so if it can sell software - millions and millions of units of it. It's very much in Microsoft's interests to have happy customers, and I know how hard the developers try to act on all the feedback they get. Unfortunately, if you ask 100 computer users what they would like in their ideal operating system you'll probably get about half the people in broad agreement - the other half all come up with slightly different answers, and that's what Microsoft has to address.

I'm sure that everyone who has worked with the company as long as I have would agree there has been a major change in the way the company interacts with its userbase over the past ten years or so. Time was when it was next to impossible to get a meaningful response from anyone about anything, let alone establish a dialogue, but that's changed. I can contact the Microsoft Press Office on more or less any subject and be guaranteed an answer from someone who speaks for the company within a day or so. I don't always get the answers I want, but at least I can ensure that my voice is heard.

Maybe one day we'll all have the ideal operating system, but I doubt it, any more than we'll all have the ideal car.

  Pineman100 19:09 03 Aug 2008

You wrote: "Since I started using Vista 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 that's the nub of my objection to Vista. I'm not saying it's bad software, but I do strongly object to the heavy investment in hardware and software that the user is required to make, in order for it to run comfortably and without problems. And for what return? Ultimately, what reward does Vista give us for the substantial outlay it requires from people who need to buy a complete new system in order to run it effectively?

As you said, you have it easy. You're a professional who is always supplied with the latest cutting-edge hard- and software, as the tools of your trade (sorry, profession!).

But for an average blokey like me, Vista looks like an expensive, un-necessary and not-very-luxurious luxury!

  johndrew 10:01 04 Aug 2008

The MS OS comes with all sorts of additional bits as `standard`; for example a firewall, an e-mail program, a browser and a de-fragmentation facility. All of these are superfluous to the basic systems and, if required, when using such as the Amiga OS are third party add-ons.

Such a philosophy reduces cost and keeps the OS compact. It also permits other dedicated programmers to produce software which works seamlessly and is flexible - it also encourages competition between various companies which also keeps price down.

An additional advantage is that the owner/operator is able to build a specific suit around the OS which suits the needs - either personal or business - rather than being tied to a greater extent by the `package` supplied.

In this philosophy the OS is kept compact and simple with various interfaces for both additional hardware and software. In the event the OS is modified it can be done in a way which may improve various aspects without detracting from its ability to interact with peripheral hardware and software.

MS has developed a program which is less flexible and more open to external abuse as a result. The various major pieces of software, such as Office, may be developed by different teams, but they are under the same roof and affected by the same philosophy. This is a little like a company that prides itself in always promoting from within - all the poor practices and errors are reinforced by not introducing new ideas and methods. Please note I am NOT saying this is the MS practice only the effect of umbrella development.

I noted with interest another thread that suggests MS may produce the sort of OS I refer to. Perhaps this would be an advantageous (for all) new start.

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

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Oppo A9 2020 Review

The art projects making this 2019 General Election more bearable

Funny things to ask Siri

Test : LIZ, la bouteille connectée française de NOERDEN