Walls Without Windows

Microsoft is about to unleash its $300 million Vista marketing campaign. Can negative perceptions be changed? That's an answer that can only come from seeing the campaign. Marketing isn't just enough. Microsoft has to do the right marketing.

According to today's Wall Street Journal, the advertising campaign will be something like "Windows, Without Walls." Reverse is the situation now. A bunch of walls stand between potential customers and Vista adoption. Reasons are many, with negative perceptions being high among them. "Too many enterprise decision-makers are accepting out of hand all of the fear, uncertainty and doubt being proliferated on the Internet by those who do not know about which they speak," said C. Marc Wagner, a services development specialist at Indiana University in Bloomington.

View: The full story @ MS-Watch

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

SSD in new Eee PC to support SATA interface

Next Story

Intel Classmate Notebook Gets Touch, Tablet Upgrades

27 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I hope they don't resort to doing things like those corny MAC commercials and to belittle the intelligence of potential buyers

"Hi I am Vista
and I am OSX"

"I have acne and like to point out things I can do with my computer"
"So do I"

The big problem with Vista is their hardware requirements. Ever since Windows 95, users didnt have to really upgrade their PCs to support the new OS. Windows 98/ME/XP could run on the same system a Windows 95 box could with little to no upgrades. Since Vista came out, people had to upgrade their PCs a lot (video, memory) when they never really had to before. Not to mention that the interface is a little different so there is a learning curve for some people./

I have been running Vista Ultimate 64 bit on my game system for about a year with no problems. Not to mention I also have Vista Business on 2 laptops with no problems.

Then you have those people who buy an OS thinking it will run on their existing system without looking at the requirements.

Offtopic:
Oh, The irony. *looks at posts by the Vista-trio, Foub, toadeater and James Riske*
My vista ran better than XP on an old AMD Athlon XP 2400+ with 1GB of RAM. Refute that.
Seriously, It is in the best interest of this site that known trolls shouldn't be allowed to post on such subject if that's all they can say. Maybe if they had some sort of, well, ANYTHING, to back up their claims. Sigh.

Ontopic:
Well, FUD has always been around. Just much higher with Vista, Probably due to the long delay in release, and 3rd party ISV\IHV. I'll add to the experience written by some saying that as a developer and gamer, I find Vista a very useful, very stable platform. The chance i get a few less FPS in games on Vista? I'd look nVidia's way rather than at Microsoft. Near-final Driver Development Kits were available a year before release and still companies with the like of nVidia and Creative didn't get off their asses - Resulting in people blaming Microsoft for things they did not do.

I've got a measly 1.7 dual core processor and 2 gigs of ram;

I've got even less - a 1.8 single core Athlon64 3000+ with 2 GB of ram and the 64-bit version of Vista runs very well. And frankly, you have to use Vista for a while to really appreciate it.

(devHead said @ #11)

I've got even less - a 1.8 single core Athlon64 3000+ with 2 GB of ram and the 64-bit version of Vista runs very well. And frankly, you have to use Vista for a while to really appreciate it.

Well, its more like, you have to use Vista for a while and then go back to XP and then you'll appreciate it.. After using Vista for over an year XP seems too old

> "Too many enterprise decision-makers are accepting out of hand all of the fear, uncertainty and doubt being
> proliferated on the Internet by those who do not know about which they speak,"

Right. There's always been objections to new Microsoft OSes as they've been introduced, but never to Vista's extent. While there's a lot of people who absolutely, positively have no clue what they're talking about and they're just repeating FUD, a lot of the stories about Vista do have a foundation in truth.

I'm a developer. Part of my job is to ensure the software I write works on Vista, so I do fire it up every once in a while. That being said, I find Vista has enough annoyances to make me want to stick to XP or Server 2003 as my primary platform.

"I'm a developer. Part of my job is to ensure the software I write works on Vista, so I do fire it up every once in a while. That being said, I find Vista has enough annoyances to make me want to stick to XP or Server 2003 as my primary platform."

Ok, can you share some of these annoyances? I'm honestly curious what these are since it almost never happens that a person who has complaints about this OS seem to never actually provide any exact examples.

(Ozood said @ #9.1)
"I'm a developer. Part of my job is to ensure the software I write works on Vista, so I do fire it up every once in a while. That being said, I find Vista has enough annoyances to make me want to stick to XP or Server 2003 as my primary platform."

Ok, can you share some of these annoyances? I'm honestly curious what these are since it almost never happens that a person who has complaints about this OS seem to never actually provide any exact examples.


I work a lot with Explorer. For one thing, the Explorer UI in Vista is wasting way too much space with useless gizmos and presenting options I'll never use. I can't get the Favorite Links on the left side (above the tree) to go away permanently, even though I never use it. I can't get Explorer to remember that I don't want to see 48x48 icons (or larger), ever, regardless of the folder I'm looking at.

Too many folder shortcuts designed to be "user-friendly" and just end up getting in the way. I wish I could get the tree to draw vertical lines like it did since the tree control was introduced in 95, as the reduced indentation width makes long listings difficult to judge at a glance. I'm a long-time Windows Classic user. Obviously Windows Classic was just an afterthought in Vista. I hate Aero's shiny pulsing buttons and animations, and can't help but think it's a waste of resources as windows stop repainting themselves when busy except for the area where animations are being drawn.

Moving/copying files...Vista thinks about it for a while, then decides to start. What is an instantaneous file copy operation (< 100 KB in size) with previous OSes unexplainably takes 20-30 seconds. I can get 3-4 prompts just to move a file, depending on its source or destination folder.

Networking every once in a while just quits for no apparent reason, on otherwise rock-solid hardware when using other OSes.

It's completely unusable with anything less than 1GB RAM, and even that's pushing it. Hard drive's constantly paging.

It seems that every second program I install has to have a separate Vista warning section in a readme. Visual Studio betas had a long list of manual steps you had to go through whenever the installation on Vista got borked, instead of "just working" like it did on other OSes.

That's just of the top of my head, and I'm not gonna whine about driver support.

I'm not saying it's a horrible OS to the extent that others make it out to be. I'm just saying it's got just enough little quirks that nag me every time I use it that, for me, remove any incentive I might have to want to commit to it and start using it fulltime as my primary OS.

(Ozood said @ #9.1)
I work a lot with Explorer. For one thing, the Explorer UI in Vista is wasting way too much space with useless gizmos and presenting options I'll never use. I can't get the Favorite Links on the left side (above the tree) to go away permanently, even though I never use it.
Organize > Layout > Navigation Pane,
or if you want to keep the folder tree just drag it all the way to the top

I can't get Explorer to remember that I don't want to see 48x48 icons (or larger), ever, regardless of the folder I'm looking at.
Yea, known problem, very annoying.

Too many folder shortcuts designed to be "user-friendly" and just end up getting in the way. I wish I could get the tree to draw vertical lines like it did since the tree control was introduced in 95, as the reduced indentation width makes long listings difficult to judge at a glance. I'm a long-time Windows Classic user. Obviously Windows Classic was just an afterthought in Vista. I hate Aero's shiny pulsing buttons and animations, and can't help but think it's a waste of resources as windows stop repainting themselves when busy except for the area where animations are being drawn.
Just because you think Aero "wastes resources" doesn't mean it does.

Moving/copying files...Vista thinks about it for a while, then decides to start. What is an instantaneous file copy operation (< 100 KB in size) with previous OSes unexplainably takes 20-30 seconds. I can get 3-4 prompts just to move a file, depending on its source or destination folder.
mmm yea, they've improved it with the later fixes though

Networking every once in a while just quits for no apparent reason, on otherwise rock-solid hardware when using other OSes.
that'd be a problem specific to your setup

It's completely unusable with anything less than 1GB RAM, and even that's pushing it. Hard drive's constantly paging.
I'm running it on 1gig perfectly fine.

It seems that every second program I install has to have a separate Vista warning section in a readme. Visual Studio betas had a long list of manual steps you had to go through whenever the installation on Vista got borked, instead of "just working" like it did on other OSes.
not vista's problem

That's just of the top of my head, and I'm not gonna whine about driver support.
not vista's problem

I'm not saying it's a horrible OS to the extent that others make it out to be. I'm just saying it's got just enough little quirks that nag me every time I use it that, for me, remove any incentive I might have to want to commit to it and start using it fulltime as my primary OS.

so that's only 2 very minor problems, 3 if you count the lack of lines in tree view (it's a GUI refresh geez, and just personally, I don't find it confusing).

Of course programs all work in XP, and drivers all support it, count the number of years its had before Vista was even started. XP suffered from the same problems Vista did when it launched, the compatibility argument doesn't hold any water.

Vista is not a bad OS.

The only problems early on where driver issues, that could have been avoided if manufacturers would have stepped up to the plate.

Networking was anothe issue, but it only took a little getting use too, 30 min is all i spent learning how to create a networ=k and share files.

A VAST number of users are not gamers, so the argument that "i get more fps in XP than Vista" is not valid. You've always known that if you want to game on a PC you have to be able to fork over a bucketload of cash to do it.

I've got no issues with Vista and i've been using it from the start. I've got a measly 1.7 dual core processor and 2 gigs of ram; even with 1 gig of ram Vista ran good enough for me to use Photoshop and Sony Vegas, which are both really memory intensive programs.

The last ones to believe about ANYTHING are the liars from Redmond, instead of marketing why don't they try to fix what they already have and THEN start their marketing while highlighting whatever improvements they have made.
There's no longer any reason to deny, they screwed up with their latest os and most everyone knows, just fix it already and move on.


http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08...28&from=rss

"More than one in every three new PCs is downgraded from Windows Vista to Windows XP, either at the factory or by the buyer, said performance and metrics researcher Devil Mountain Software, which operates a community-based testing network. 'The 35% is only an estimate, but it shows a trend within our own user base,' Craig Barth, the company's CTO, said. 'People are taking advantage of Vista's downgrade rights.' Last year, Devil Mountain benchmarked Vista and XP performance using other performance-testing tools and concluded that XP was much faster. Barth said things haven't changed since then. 'Everything I've seen clearly shows me that Vista is an OS that should never have left the barn.'

Did you ever use Vista? OK hear me out, it's good for everyone.

Why the hell do people install Vista on a piece of crap, and then complain that it sucks? Try installing XP on a 1996 machine. You will want to rip your hair out. Then install it on a 2003-2006 machine. You will think "wow this is so fast". Do the same for Vista. Use current hardware, not age old machines. Don't expect miracles with your old computers.

Welcome to the world of technology, where both SOFTWARE and HARDWARE are necessities.

People seriously need to use their brain once in a while, and when something is wrong, they should look to see WHY and not blame it on the OS.

Computers don't mess themselves up, its the user. I've never got a virus is over 4 years, because I know how to use a computer.

(Swordnyx said @ #7.1)
Did you ever use Vista? OK hear me out, it's good for everyone.

Why the hell do people install Vista on a piece of crap, and then complain that it sucks? Try installing XP on a 1996 machine. You will want to rip your hair out. Then install it on a 2003-2006 machine. You will think "wow this is so fast". Do the same for Vista. Use current hardware, not age old machines. Don't expect miracles with your old computers.

Welcome to the world of technology, where both SOFTWARE and HARDWARE are necessities.

People seriously need to use their brain once in a while, and when something is wrong, they should look to see WHY and not blame it on the OS.

Computers don't mess themselves up, its the user. I've never got a virus is over 4 years, because I know how to use a computer.

I AGREE 100%!!!

(Swordnyx said @ #7.1)
Did you ever use Vista?

Of course I have, I used it for several months, premium came preloaded with my Dell XPS that I purchased back in february however I upgraded to 8 gigs of OCZ and purchased 64 bit ultimate less than a month later.

The machine was certainly up to date, quad core, sli, etc.. but the OS was a steaming pile that gave more headaches than anything else.
Going back to XP 64 everything works as it should, no crazy hard drive stuff, no compatibility issues or strange errors, no issues at all.

Naturally fanboys will claim that you just don't know how to use it etc etc whatever excuse they can dream up to try and salvage their beloved OS but facts are facts, the OS is a steaming pile and that's all there is to it.

(Swordnyx said @ #7.1)
Did you ever use Vista? OK hear me out, it's good for everyone.

Welcome to the world of technology, where both SOFTWARE and HARDWARE are necessities.

People seriously need to use their brain once in a while, and when something is wrong, they should look to see WHY and not blame it on the OS.

Welcome to the world of consume wh*re, where both NEW SOFTWARE and NEW HARDWARE are necessities (almost every year).

In the corporate viewpoint the choices are
cheap machine + fast OS versus expensive machine + slow OS.

No matter how rich is a company, yet it is not reason to toss money on a new machine only because vista is bling-bling.

(James Riske said @ #7.3)


Of course I have, I used it for several months, premium came preloaded with my Dell XPS that I purchased back in february however I upgraded to 8 gigs of OCZ and purchased 64 bit ultimate less than a month later.

The machine was certainly up to date, quad core, sli, etc.. but the OS was a steaming pile that gave more headaches than anything else.
Going back to XP 64 everything works as it should, no crazy hard drive stuff, no compatibility issues or strange errors, no issues at all.

Naturally fanboys will claim that you just don't know how to use it etc etc whatever excuse they can dream up to try and salvage their beloved OS but facts are facts, the OS is a steaming pile and that's all there is to it.


I seriously question either your honesty or your competence. I run Vista Business 64-bit on a 2GHz AMD dual core Opteron with two gigs of memory and one video card (mid-range back in 2006) and the experience is above and beyond what XP does for me. Either 1) I am a GOD at using computers and making them bend to my will, 2) you fail at Vista, or 3) your experience with Vista is somewhat less extensive than you claim.

I'm on a computer that couldn't even do WoW on its highest visual settings in XP without ruining the flow, and it baffles me how people make it seem like Vista doesn't know what to do with hardware.

(Magallanes said @ #7.4)
Welcome to the world of consume wh*re, where both NEW SOFTWARE and NEW HARDWARE are necessities (almost every year).


Yeah, we're totally expected to buy new hardware for that new version of Windows that comes out every year.

Microsoft just needs to speak to people. Their marketing problem was from the fact that there wasn't any.

When you leave a hole like that, guess what? All of those companies, and media outlets that compete or just hate you will fill in the holes with FUD. Which is what happen and is why so many of them despise Microsoft for doing this ad campaign that may undo all of their "work".

Im all for Vista, as long as its on a pretty decent machine. Running on a single core is just too painful.

SK[ said,#5]Im all for Vista, as long as its on a pretty decent machine. Running on a single core is just too painful.

Running it on a quad core is equally painful, in fact, running it on anything is painful.

User's perception of Vista is definitely fueled by FUD. I love how many people who obviously haven't tried Vista talk about it like they have first hand knowledge of the OS. More talking heads.

(Shadrack said @ #4)
User's perception of Vista is definitely fueled by FUD. I love how many people who obviously haven't tried Vista talk about it like they have first hand knowledge of the OS. More talking heads.

2004: Longhorn is a revolution in operating systems. The world will tremble in terror at the power of Microsoft!
2005: OK, it's not Longhorn, but it's still got DX10. (No, we won't port DX10 to XP.)
2006: It's just a beta! The retail version will be super fast and stable! It will blow away XP! The wow starts now!
2007: Come on, it's not THAT bad! It's almost as fast as XP!
2008: People who don't like Vista obviously haven't tried it.
2009: Who needs Vista when you've got Windows 7 beta? It's super improved, with 10x more DRM!
2010: Come on, it's not THAT bad! It's almost as fast as XP!

(toadeater said @ #4.1)

2004: Longhorn is a revolution in operating systems. The world will tremble in terror at the power of Microsoft!
2005: OK, it's not Longhorn, but it's still got DX10. (No, we won't port DX10 to XP.)
2006: It's just a beta! The retail version will be super fast and stable! It will blow away XP! The wow starts now!
2007: Come on, it's not THAT bad! It's almost as fast as XP!
2008: People who don't like Vista obviously haven't tried it.
2009: Who needs Vista when you've got Windows 7 beta? It's super improved, with 10x more DRM!
2010: Come on, it's not THAT bad! It's almost as fast as XP! :laugh:

...

I despise people who say stupid stuff like this in a sad attempt to look "cool". Ignorance is failure.

(Swordnyx said @ #4.2)
I despise people who say stupid stuff like this in a sad attempt to look "cool". Ignorance is failure.


If you think what he said was "stupid" then certainly you have had the opportunity to refute his words or demonstrate why his opinion is "stupid", and yet you haven't done either.

(toadeater said @ #4.1)
2004: Longhorn is a revolution in operating systems. The world will tremble in terror at the power of Microsoft!
2005: OK, it's not Longhorn, but it's still got DX10. (No, we won't port DX10 to XP.)
2006: It's just a beta! The retail version will be super fast and stable! It will blow away XP! The wow starts now!
2007: Come on, it's not THAT bad! It's almost as fast as XP!
2008: People who don't like Vista obviously haven't tried it.
2009: Who needs Vista when you've got Windows 7 beta? It's super improved, with 10x more DRM!
2010: Come on, it's not THAT bad! It's almost as fast as XP! :laugh:


hahaha

You gotta do what you gotta do to sell your product. About time they promote Vista.
I used to be a Vista hater.. but now that I've used it for over a year, I like it a lot more than XP.

Just the disable the UAC, upgrade to SP1, and it's totally useable.

I really hate when people 'hate' on a product without actually give it a real try first.

Good luck MS