No rush to Vista

So last Thursday was Windows Vista Launch Day ... finally. But while Microsoft had its banners flying, some folks I know were more on the ho-hum scale. My buddy Paul Lindo, an IT consultant, was wondering if "it might just be Windows XP with a prettier face."

And it's true that Vista suffered several features "adjustments" as well as a lengthier-than-expected road to shrink, including the infamous 2004 dumping of WinFS and its resulting ground-up re-programming effort. So while the rest of the business world was wondering about the effects of all this Vista voodoo, I wanted to hear Microsoft's opinion. My invite to the actual launch event, however, seems to have been lost in the mail -ahem!, so I had to call Microsoft to find out. Surprise, surprise, they're happy as clams.

"It may have been a long road, but watching how our early adopters are responding to the platform, we know we've got a winner," said Brad Goldberg, Microsoft's general manager of client product management. When I told him Lindo's comment, he didn't seem fazed.

View: Full Article @ InfoWorld

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Security Update for Excel 2002 (KB923089)

Next Story

ATI loses ground in graphics after AMD purchase

59 Comments

View more comments

Quote - Brandon Live said @ #12.2

That's the most ridiculous comment I've read. You think because XP doesn't make use of all those resources that it's going to be faster??? What are you smoking?

And what resources vista has that xp dont?

Vista brings new features but also left too many improvements behind, and has too many garbage inside...

At least the new interface is cute.

Quote - Brandon Live said @ #12.2
That's the most ridiculous comment I've read. You think because XP doesn't make use of all those resources that it's going to be faster??? What are you smoking?


If your a programmer working for Microsoft, then I doubt you would have the time to really worry about what people are smoking.

Our campus is waiting to figure out how we're going to handle the new validation crap before we even start testing.

I'm using Vista RC1 as my desktop at work. Its fantastic, its a significant enough improvement over XP to consider a new operating system.

Quote - ziadoz said @ #14
I'm using Vista RC1 as my desktop at work. Its fantastic, its a significant enough improvement over XP to consider a new operating system.

How is it fantastic?

Quote - Galley said @ #15
Everyone's waiting until Mac OS X Leopard ships and will then make the switch. ;)

That sounds about right. I just saw some pigs fly over the frozen wastelands of Hell.

yes yes yes, ........... been hearing the same since the first incarnation of OS X , and people are still using windows more than the apple OS.

If apple really wants more people to switch over, they'll better start by lowering their prices

Oh right I forgot about that. And if you want I can get you some awesome OS X 10.5 screenshots. All you have to do is fire up Mac OS X 10.4 and take some screenshots. Or, fire up Mac OS X 10.3 and add a tiny Spotlight logo in the upper right corner, then take a screenshot. Or, go 'About This Mac' and change the 4 to a 5.

At least Microsfot doesn't charge for its service packs. The only person on the edge of their seat for Leopard is Steve. Oh and Galley.

I wonderhow many people will be camped out in front of the Mac store the day it's out.

Or if anyone will even notice for that matter.

Quote - C_Guy said @ #15.3
Oh right I forgot about that. And if you want I can get you some awesome OS X 10.5 screenshots. All you have to do is fire up Mac OS X 10.4 and take some screenshots. Or, fire up Mac OS X 10.3 and add a tiny Spotlight logo in the upper right corner, then take a screenshot. Or, go 'About This Mac' and change the 4 to a 5.

At least Microsfot doesn't charge for its service packs. The only person on the edge of their seat for Leopard is Steve. Oh and Galley.

I wonderhow many people will be camped out in front of the Mac store the day it's out.

Or if anyone will even notice for that matter.

Well, based on my experience at the Apple store in London when Tiger came out, about a 1000 or so were there.

As we're aware now, operating systems are very much about adding new features to what works. OS X works, Windows works, so they don't change it. Sure, they've made Vista look fancy, like apple did when they released OS X, but its still an operating system with a number of features. I'm sure you're not silly enough to think that the difference between two versions of OS X is a 16x16 pixel icon, any more than you'd think the difference between XP and Vista is the new UI.

Microsoft do not release service packs that add features (appart from security, e.g. SP2), Apple's releases are smaller, but then most people would probably have preferred Microsoft to go down the same route - more frequent, cheaper releases. I think this is something they'll try to do in the future, to some extent at least. I certainly doubt they'll wait 5 years for the next release.

Try and be rational about these things!

"it might just be Windows XP with a prettier face."

deja vu. Seriously, I could've sworn the same was said about WinXP when Win2K was the OS of choice.

So, Vista is XP with a prettier face...
And XP is 2k with a prettier face...
Which was NT with a prettier face... :ermm:

So, either Vista is an NT clone that looks supermodel-hot, or this line of reasoning is flawed.

Perhaps you will agree that Vista does look pretty, but also has a nice personality. :P There really are a lot of (much needed) improvements in Vista.

XP was 2k with a prettier (uglier..) face.

The only features added in XP over 2K were fairly insignificant. Infact I disable almost every feature in XP not in 2k.

This is probably why people say the same thing with Vista.

Active Directory and all the great centralized management that came with it is what made the Windows 2000 line great. Improvements in that regard have all been steady, but incremental upgrades to the functionality originally built for Windows 2000. The fact that Windows 2000 isn't an antiquated piece of junk is a real testament to either just how good it was, or just how little has changed.

Windows XP was to bring the stability of the NT line to the home user, but changed only a handful of things from 2000. System Restore, Remote Desktop, and a handful of little utilities and button-shuffling is all it really amounted to, hence the 5.1 versioning. Calling XP "2000 with a prettier face" is still fairly accurate, though you might need some beer goggles for the "pretty" to kick in :cool:.

Vista is supposed to bring in the security, and it really might do that. The only problem with that is how Microsoft has been claiming to bring in the security with every new version of Windows, so nobody really believes them anymore. A consultant doesn't care much at all about new audio APIs, or the latest version of DirectX (you'd be amazed at how many corporate desktops run 8MB Rage 3D graphic boards), so that leaves the new security features, and the "pretty face". BitLocker might be cool, and UAC is neat, but they simply can't be trusted yet -- selling Microsoft products on security is simply off the table until further notice.

I was at a Microsoft show earlier today, though none of what was shown there was any secret to anyone who cares. The new server systems will be powerful and manageable. Office 2007 is a breakthrough in UI design. Vista is really really secure...

well, in any case, at least it looks nice.

I still think Win2K was the best OS Microsoft released, for its time. To me, XP WAS just 2K with a prettier (I thought it was 10 times uglier) face and superfluous additions. My initial reaction to seeing the Luna interface was "Awwww how cute!! It must be a Fisher Price computer....wait, this is Windows XP?". I ended up reverting to 2K for years, until XP SP2. As for Vista, my computer is too old to play nice with its video card requirements, so I haven't used it enough to form a general opinion about it.

XP is 2k w/ prettier face... so Vista must be 2k w/ gorgeous face.

Anyway, I did some of the beta testing on Vista. I've argued with some people on this forum and elsewhere that Vista does not offer anything over XP.

If someone can fill in the following blank for me, then I will submit that Vista is worthwhile:

Windows Vista helps my productivity with my job because it has ______________, which XP did not have.

About the only thing Vista has over XP that I'm even remotely interested in is DirectX 10. Any they just chose to do that to increase sells for Vista so screw MS.

Quote - Shadrack said @ #1

Windows Vista helps my productivity with my job because it has ______________, which XP did not have.

I'll take the bait:

Windows Vista helps my productivity with my job because it has saved indexed searches, which allows me to see all my video files in two clicks, fast, which XP did not have. Sure, you can save searches in XP, but it does not auto-load them, and has to browse the drive every time.

That feature alone has saved me hours of work with videos, pictures, and a mess of other files.

Quote - AfroTrance said @ #19.1
So that's true? Haha... then there won't be a DirectX 10 only game for about 6 years...

I hope PC devs switch to OpenGL. I don't know why they ever switched away from it. Except for John Carmack. You'd think he might know better than the script kiddies who make games at EA?

I'm interested but not right away, it's not like XP isn't stable but I always like to be on the lastest if I can Maybe after the holiday is over

I want innovation... how come Vista does not utilize it's own technologies...

eg... WPF- not even the gadets can use it without hacks.

I wanted to see a "Cinematic desktop experiance" I don't in Vista.

I'll give it time...

ANova, I have largely found the opposite experience from you, and I don't exactly have the latest and greatest of hardware. In fact, with the exception of my SATA hard drive and one (of my two) DVD burners, none of the hardware is newer than two years old (and even the DVD burner is almost a year old).
You having issues with a partoicular brand of hardware (say, nVidia)?

I'm not having issues with any particular piece of hardware and it is about as fast as it can be but it's just not as fast as XP, which is to be expected since it has the 3d UI now as well as 30 more processes running in the background. My computer is no slouch (P4 @ 3.4 GHz, 1 GB DDR500 and X850 XT) I just don't find much other than the UI that impresses me. Some apps (including windows apps) do crash occasionally as well, especially media center which does so on a consistent basis if I add too much at once or while it's gathering info on music and videos. I find little use for it overall.

With OpenSUSE 10.2 and Solaris 10 11/06 (Update 3) released in the last couple of weeks, who needs Vista?

Commenting is disabled on this article.