Closing the Door to Microsoft Vista

[markwolfe Veteran]

... i love it because A it runs command and conquer tiberium dawn and red alert no problem...

Oh, I am sure those apps are high upon the corporate lists of "must run" software. (N)

[etempest]

Makes sense, all the software they use will be updated and work with Windows 7 while using the "stable" stuff that works in XP/2000, so when they do move over, all skip all the "public" beta testing on the public with the OS as well as there software they use.

That way they can move to a new os, with great hardware support and far less buggy software then if they were to jump on the vista band wagon.

[nekrosoft13]

what a stupid thing to say from GM

yes, because everyone knows that Windows 7 will be perfect, it will run on same system specs that windows 98 runs on, and all software will run on it as well. not only windows programs, but BEOS, Linux, Unix, MAc you name it, it will run.

[toadeater]

Windows quality has drastically slipped over the past two years. I'm not talking about Vista, which is DOA, I mean even the updates, service packs, and online services are having issues on a scale worse than ever before. Notice all the broken updates lately? They still can't even get SP3 to install properly on many systems. I suggest you Google that if you think I'm making it up. SP3 needs an SP, that's how bad things have gotten at MS.

It is symptomatic of a company that has gotten too big and is losing control and its focus. MS is too big, too bureaucratic and is run by demagogues who are more concerned with their own careers than Microsoft's products. Microsoft's management is out of touch with the real world, and I suspect they don't even use their own products, I bet they all have Macs. Steve Ballmer should be forced to use Vista and MS products exclusively WITHOUT TECH SUPPORT FROM MS EMPLOYEES, just like users in the real world have to do. Eat their own dog food like they say.

That's right, put Ballmer in an office in New Mexico in the middle of nowhere, without tech support, and let him deal with Vista then. I bet he'll get deactivated and will have to spend hours convincing MS's tech support Oomp Loompas that he really is Steve Ballmer. They'll call the DHS and have him arrested for identity theft/terrorism/mp3 piracy. Hopefully he'll get waterboarded.

I realize some of this has to do with OEMs screwing up installs, and bad drivers, but the root cause isn't that--much as MS would like to lay the blame on that--it is the way Windows is designed. It's like a house of cards; one little bug, even something as insignificant as an errant log file (Google install problems with Windows SPs) or a single corrupted registry entry, and the whole thing comes crashing down. Yeah, you've got system restore, but how does that help with security updates that cause BSODs or don't install at all? That's not even mentioning all the bugs in general that MS is still unable to fix, and the security vulnerabilities.

Allchin warned Gates and Ballmer about this back in 2005, but they didn't listen. Windows needs a complete makeover, and MS needs to refocus on its core products instead of chasing after Google, Apple, Sony, and just about everyone else who creates a successful new product. Vista is never going to be fixed, because even XP is still not fixed six years later and Vista is based on the same registry-centric design. If Windows 7 is just Vista in a new package, it's never going to work properly either.

[Ytterbium]

My Internation Pharma company said exactly the same thing this week

[Airlink]

No surprise. Vista moved all the common dialogs we had become familiar with from Win2K and WinXP, and so moving to Vista is a learning experience (to put it mildly). Stack in the software, hardware, and driver incompatibility issues, the outrageous prices, and the lack of any new compelling features, and why would anyone in their right mind jump on the Vista bandwagon when they don't have to?

OK, fine: If you need (not want, need) to run something that ONLY works with Vista, m'k then go ahead. Do it. Make the switch. If not, why would you? It's not like a Vista license is free, you know.

[ajua]

GM's software vendors still haven't ensured all their programs will run on Vista trouble-free. So the company is sticking with Windows XP for now.

So, why on earth would a company upgrade their OS? It isn't a choice, they are forced to stick with XP.

Vista taxes all but the most modern PCs with hefty processing and memory requirements.

There is no hefty processing in Vista by itself. And the memory requirement is somehow "high" because the minimum to rake advantage of it is 1gb. XP can run better with 512mb, but it's memory management make it a pain in the butt if you run the computers 24/7 like many companies do. So, again, the sweet spot for most computers would be 1gb for both XP and Vista.

[jjrambo]

Windows quality has drastically slipped over the past two years. I'm not talking about Vista, which is DOA, I mean even the updates, service packs, and online services are having issues on a scale worse than ever before. Notice all the broken updates lately? They still can't even get SP3 to install properly on many systems. I suggest you Google that if you think I'm making it up. SP3 needs an SP, that's how bad things have gotten at MS.

It is symptomatic of a company that has gotten too big and is losing control and its focus. MS is too big, too bureaucratic and is run by demagogues who are more concerned with their own careers than Microsoft's products. Microsoft's management is out of touch with the real world, and I suspect they don't even use their own products, I bet they all have Macs. Steve Ballmer should be forced to use Vista and MS products exclusively WITHOUT TECH SUPPORT FROM MS EMPLOYEES, just like users in the real world have to do. Eat their own dog food like they say.

That's right, put Ballmer in an office in New Mexico in the middle of nowhere, without tech support, and let him deal with Vista then. I bet he'll get deactivated and will have to spend hours convincing MS's tech support Oomp Loompas that he really is Steve Ballmer. They'll call the DHS and have him arrested for identity theft/terrorism/mp3 piracy. Hopefully he'll get waterboarded.

I realize some of this has to do with OEMs screwing up installs, and bad drivers, but the root cause isn't that--much as MS would like to lay the blame on that--it is the way Windows is designed. It's like a house of cards; one little bug, even something as insignificant as an errant log file (Google install problems with Windows SPs) or a single corrupted registry entry, and the whole thing comes crashing down. Yeah, you've got system restore, but how does that help with security updates that cause BSODs or don't install at all? That's not even mentioning all the bugs in general that MS is still unable to fix, and the security vulnerabilities.

Allchin warned Gates and Ballmer about this back in 2005, but they didn't listen. Windows needs a complete makeover, and MS needs to refocus on its core products instead of chasing after Google, Apple, Sony, and just about everyone else who creates a successful new product. Vista is never going to be fixed, because even XP is still not fixed six years later and Vista is based on the same registry-centric design. If Windows 7 is just Vista in a new package, it's never going to work properly either.

Amen

Registry and whole Folder/File management in Windows is one big **** up. As soon as they come up with totally new OS it will be alright.

[+Tantawi Subscriber²]

There is no hefty processing in Vista by itself. And the memory requirement is somehow "high" because the minimum to rake advantage of it is 1gb. XP can run better with 512mb, but it's memory management make it a pain in the butt if you run the computers 24/7 like many companies do. So, again, the sweet spot for most computers would be 1gb for both XP and Vista.

I'd say 2GB for Vista and 1GB for XP.

My take on this news is that it's a wise decision from GM, businesses don't need Vista, so if they can't justify the cost or benefits then there's nothing wrong with that, it's not like they're upgrading a couple of PCs, but it's hundreds and may be thousands of PCs.

For home users and business that can afford it, Vista is very worthwhile. (Y).

[DrewJW]

Windows quality has drastically slipped over the past two years. I'm not talking about Vista, which is DOA, I mean even the updates, service packs, and online services are having issues on a scale worse than ever before. Notice all the broken updates lately? They still can't even get SP3 to install properly on many systems. I suggest you Google that if you think I'm making it up. SP3 needs an SP, that's how bad things have gotten at MS.

It is symptomatic of a company that has gotten too big and is losing control and its focus. MS is too big, too bureaucratic and is run by demagogues who are more concerned with their own careers than Microsoft's products. Microsoft's management is out of touch with the real world, and I suspect they don't even use their own products, I bet they all have Macs. Steve Ballmer should be forced to use Vista and MS products exclusively WITHOUT TECH SUPPORT FROM MS EMPLOYEES, just like users in the real world have to do. Eat their own dog food like they say.

That's right, put Ballmer in an office in New Mexico in the middle of nowhere, without tech support, and let him deal with Vista then. I bet he'll get deactivated and will have to spend hours convincing MS's tech support Oomp Loompas that he really is Steve Ballmer. They'll call the DHS and have him arrested for identity theft/terrorism/mp3 piracy. Hopefully he'll get waterboarded.

I realize some of this has to do with OEMs screwing up installs, and bad drivers, but the root cause isn't that--much as MS would like to lay the blame on that--it is the way Windows is designed. It's like a house of cards; one little bug, even something as insignificant as an errant log file (Google install problems with Windows SPs) or a single corrupted registry entry, and the whole thing comes crashing down. Yeah, you've got system restore, but how does that help with security updates that cause BSODs or don't install at all? That's not even mentioning all the bugs in general that MS is still unable to fix, and the security vulnerabilities.

Allchin warned Gates and Ballmer about this back in 2005, but they didn't listen. Windows needs a complete makeover, and MS needs to refocus on its core products instead of chasing after Google, Apple, Sony, and just about everyone else who creates a successful new product. Vista is never going to be fixed, because even XP is still not fixed six years later and Vista is based on the same registry-centric design. If Windows 7 is just Vista in a new package, it's never going to work properly either.

Quoted For Truth.

[Eric Veteran]

Hold on there, he has a point. It can still be a failure, even if the software works well. Amiga OS worked really, really well, however it too was an epic failure.

Content may be king, but adoption rates pay the king's salary. And in that way, Vista is failing.

-Ax

That was Commodore's management that was the epic fail, not Amiga OS or the hardware. :)

[DerAusgewanderte]

I'd say 2GB for Vista and 1GB for XP.

My take on this news is that it's a wise decision from GM, businesses don't need Vista, so if they can't justify the cost or benefits then there's nothing wrong with that, it's not like they're upgrading a couple of PCs, but it's hundreds and may be thousands of PCs.

For home users and business that can afford it, Vista is very worthwhile. (Y).

but that's not what it says. it says they skip Vista and go right to 7 when available. Eventually they need to upgrade their hardware. the article does not grade any OS, it merely says that they are not in a position to upgrade because their hw is not ready. and in this context the article is just very misleading, in my view it's humbug. all it says is: "it's too expensive for us to upgrade, we skip a version of OS and it will give us time to upgrade our hw for the next OS". The problem with this is that it's only 2 years away and the assumption that 7 will work just fine for whatever they may get. May well just switch to OSX, all problems will disappear instantly, it's much cheaper, the system never crashes, there are 0 security problems, it's cool and fashionable, the reasons are just endless... :p

[Eric Veteran]

Not quoting all of that crap from toadeater, but, once again, he has decided that a group of people having problems = everyone. I'm not surprised at all. If he really needs it, I can buy that abacus for him, but they are kinda complicated... He keeps mention all these failures in Vista, but I don't think I've seen him asking for help from the community even once... I wonder why?

[+Tantawi Subscriber²]

but that's not what it says. it says they skip Vista and go right to 7 when available. Eventually they need to upgrade their hardware. the article does not grade any OS, it merely says that they are not in a position to upgrade because their hw is not ready. and in this context the article is just very misleading, in my view it's humbug. all it says is: "it's too expensive for us to upgrade, we skip a version of OS and it will give us time to upgrade our hw for the next OS". The problem with this is that it's only 2 years away and the assumption that 7 will work just fine for whatever they may get. May well just switch to OSX, all problems will disappear instantly, it's much cheaper, the system never crashes, there are 0 security problems, it's cool and fashionable, the reasons are just endless... :p

:D

That's what I mean by saying "they can't justify the cost or benefits", if GM will upgrade anyway and if they doesn't see benefits of immediately upgrading to Vista (or if they're not ready applications/hardware wise), then they might as well wait for Windows 7 since it's "soon" and upgrade meeting its requirements.

[DrunkenMaster]

Consider that GM probably still has P3 or early P4 class systems with 512 MB of RAM for most of the employees.

I have a PC at home with a P3 600 and 512 MB of RAM. I have XP running on it fine. All the Linux distros even with E17 run fine w/o a graphics acceleration. I've tried Windows 2000 and 2003 trial versions and they both run perfectly fine on it. I tried Vista in a computer store on a Core2 laptop 2 GB RAM with a decent video card and it was as slow as molasses. Maybe it was the video drivers. But the GUI certainly turned me off anyway.

[zerologic]

WHO SAID WINDOWS 7 WON'T TAKE A HIGHER DEMAND ON HARDWARE REQUIREMENTS?

Bill Gates did.

:happy:

My Internation Pharma company said exactly the same thing this week

Alaska Airlines also.

"There's no business value in us continuing to chase that upgrade cycle," says Senior Vice-President and CIO Bob Reeder.

[NEVER85]

Windows quality has drastically slipped over the past two years. I'm not talking about Vista, which is DOA, I mean even the updates, service packs, and online services are having issues on a scale worse than ever before. Notice all the broken updates lately? They still can't even get SP3 to install properly on many systems. I suggest you Google that if you think I'm making it up. SP3 needs an SP, that's how bad things have gotten at MS.

It is symptomatic of a company that has gotten too big and is losing control and its focus. MS is too big, too bureaucratic and is run by demagogues who are more concerned with their own careers than Microsoft's products. Microsoft's management is out of touch with the real world, and I suspect they don't even use their own products, I bet they all have Macs. Steve Ballmer should be forced to use Vista and MS products exclusively WITHOUT TECH SUPPORT FROM MS EMPLOYEES, just like users in the real world have to do. Eat their own dog food like they say.

That's right, put Ballmer in an office in New Mexico in the middle of nowhere, without tech support, and let him deal with Vista then. I bet he'll get deactivated and will have to spend hours convincing MS's tech support Oomp Loompas that he really is Steve Ballmer. They'll call the DHS and have him arrested for identity theft/terrorism/mp3 piracy. Hopefully he'll get waterboarded.

I realize some of this has to do with OEMs screwing up installs, and bad drivers, but the root cause isn't that--much as MS would like to lay the blame on that--it is the way Windows is designed. It's like a house of cards; one little bug, even something as insignificant as an errant log file (Google install problems with Windows SPs) or a single corrupted registry entry, and the whole thing comes crashing down. Yeah, you've got system restore, but how does that help with security updates that cause BSODs or don't install at all? That's not even mentioning all the bugs in general that MS is still unable to fix, and the security vulnerabilities.

Allchin warned Gates and Ballmer about this back in 2005, but they didn't listen. Windows needs a complete makeover, and MS needs to refocus on its core products instead of chasing after Google, Apple, Sony, and just about everyone else who creates a successful new product. Vista is never going to be fixed, because even XP is still not fixed six years later and Vista is based on the same registry-centric design. If Windows 7 is just Vista in a new package, it's never going to work properly either.

Epic fail post. I use Vista and don't require tech support from Microsoft. Also, one little bug and Windows comes crashing down? What universe do you live in? This isn't the Windows 98 era, one little bug does not crash an entire operating system that consists of millions upon millions of lines of code. I suggest getting your facts straight before you embarrass yourself further.

[JustGeorge]

Windows quality has drastically slipped over the past two years. I'm not talking about Vista, which is DOA, I mean even the updates, service packs, and online services are having issues on a scale worse than ever before. Notice all the broken updates lately? They still can't even get SP3 to install properly on many systems. I suggest you Google that if you think I'm making it up. SP3 needs an SP, that's how bad things have gotten at MS.

It is symptomatic of a company that has gotten too big and is losing control and its focus. MS is too big, too bureaucratic and is run by demagogues who are more concerned with their own careers than Microsoft's products. Microsoft's management is out of touch with the real world, and I suspect they don't even use their own products, I bet they all have Macs. Steve Ballmer should be forced to use Vista and MS products exclusively WITHOUT TECH SUPPORT FROM MS EMPLOYEES, just like users in the real world have to do. Eat their own dog food like they say.

That's right, put Ballmer in an office in New Mexico in the middle of nowhere, without tech support, and let him deal with Vista then. I bet he'll get deactivated and will have to spend hours convincing MS's tech support Oomp Loompas that he really is Steve Ballmer. They'll call the DHS and have him arrested for identity theft/terrorism/mp3 piracy. Hopefully he'll get waterboarded.

I realize some of this has to do with OEMs screwing up installs, and bad drivers, but the root cause isn't that--much as MS would like to lay the blame on that--it is the way Windows is designed. It's like a house of cards; one little bug, even something as insignificant as an errant log file (Google install problems with Windows SPs) or a single corrupted registry entry, and the whole thing comes crashing down. Yeah, you've got system restore, but how does that help with security updates that cause BSODs or don't install at all? That's not even mentioning all the bugs in general that MS is still unable to fix, and the security vulnerabilities.

Allchin warned Gates and Ballmer about this back in 2005, but they didn't listen. Windows needs a complete makeover, and MS needs to refocus on its core products instead of chasing after Google, Apple, Sony, and just about everyone else who creates a successful new product. Vista is never going to be fixed, because even XP is still not fixed six years later and Vista is based on the same registry-centric design. If Windows 7 is just Vista in a new package, it's never going to work properly either.

Quoted for bull****

Vista took so long because the original longhorn code was scrapped after Allchin's talk with Gates and Ballmer. Just because you don't like how it turned out doesn't mean they didn't do anything about the problem.

[offroadaaron]

Ok all these Anti-vista posts and stuff, crazy.

But I have to agree as much as Vista is working for me I dont see a point in having it. Its not because "more RAM gets taken up all the time" and all this whole OMG it uses way to many resources! (I know RAM is includeed in resources). For me Vista isn't much of an upgrade it runs everything I have just the same I dont have a problem with that. I have a problem with windows multitasking!!!! I have a problem with it not offering me anything but Aero and that crap program changing thing (whatever its called). I'm currently running Windows Vista and I like it but IF I had to buy it all over again, well, I wouldn't bother.

ITS GOOD BUT WHAT DOES IT OFFER ME? I'm yet to find out.

and also multitasking is annoying as hell (even on Windows XP) I have a Mac and I used ubuntu aswell and they are sooooo much better for multitasking its not funny. I hope that Microsoft fix this!

my 2 cents.

[ctebah]

During an interview with Microsoft Chairman and part-time philanthropist Bill Gates, Gizmodo asked, "In the last say, five years, what one product would you wish you could've polished a little more?" Gates paused for a moment then replied bluntly, "Uh... Ask me after we ship the next version of Windows. [laughs] Then I'll be more open to give you a blunt answer." You probably don't need to be an analyst with a Ph.D. to decipher that statement, which suggests there's a fair share of disappointment regarding Vista's polish inside Microsoft itself.

You probably don't need to be an analyst with a Ph.D. to decipher that statement, which suggests there's a fair share of disappointment regarding Vista's polish inside Microsoft itself.

[+Tantawi Subscriber²]

Can anybody be satisfied 100% about his work? isn't always there's that extra improvement you could've made? Give an extra day to any software developer and he'll make the product better by one day's work.

I see Gates' answer completely normal and honest, it doesn't mean Vista is bad, but it mean it's not perfect, like any OS, hence there's SP1, and ongoing updates till its EOL.

[bobbytomorow]

Wow Vista users sure go out of their way to defend a product they don't even have a financial stake in (As in no microsoft stock). Seriously we get it, you bought Vista and don't think its horrible, obviously a ton of other users do... deal with it. I mean honestly its not like people that dislike Vista are attacking you personally so just be happy with your purchase and stop trying to justify it.

[+Tantawi Subscriber²]

^ :D

I believe it's the other way around.

[Titoist]

This Vista issue should end. A number of posts claim that "most" people hate Vista. Now, let me ask you this. If "most" people hate Vista, why did the Neowin community vote Vista as their #1 OS?

[ANova]

^ :D

I believe it's the other way around.

In what way. We didn't buy Vista because we didn't like it. The cheerleaders are the ones that buy it and defend it like it's their own child.

Get a life I say.