XP's Success Isn't Vista's Failure
Saturday, September 29, 2007 by Philly0381 | Discussion: Personal Computing
eWeek Microsoft Watch at times seems to be Microsoft's best friend, if you know what I mean. I've learned to read stuff on the internet much like I listen to talk radio. Read it or listen to it and then if I'm interested check it out.
Microsoft's decision to let OEMs sell Windows XP for six additional months is the right move. But continued XP demand isn't a knock against Windows Vista.
To that statement I say, Yeah, right!
Vista has gotten a bad rap, and Microsoft is partly to blame. In late 2003, Microsoft touted all the great—and, yes, truly innovative—features coming in Windows XP's successor. Later, Microsoft dumped most of the best stuff, failing to deliver on many Vista promises.
If Microsoft is only partly to blame, who gets the rest of the credit, who else is responsible?
WWW Link
Microsoft's decision to let OEMs sell Windows XP for six additional months is the right move. But continued XP demand isn't a knock against Windows Vista.
To that statement I say, Yeah, right!
Vista has gotten a bad rap, and Microsoft is partly to blame. In late 2003, Microsoft touted all the great—and, yes, truly innovative—features coming in Windows XP's successor. Later, Microsoft dumped most of the best stuff, failing to deliver on many Vista promises.
If Microsoft is only partly to blame, who gets the rest of the credit, who else is responsible?
WWW Link
 |
|
Page 2 of 3 | |
|
|---|
Gideon MacLeish
Reply #22 Saturday, September 29, 2007 5:17 PM
I'm not forgetting. There are a lot of features I like about Vista, but they're not features that make it easier for the average end user. UAC, for instance, can be disabled, but the average EU hasn't a clue how to do so.
People have been looking for a reason to go somewhere other than Microsoft for a long time, and I believe Vista may give them just such an excuse. Linux distros are becoming easier for the average user, and Vista is becoming more of a hassle.
Actually, Windows 2000 wasn't made for the home market. ME was a replacement for 98, 2000 was a replacement for NT.
I have to concede this point. MS has not made a single O/S release on time, they're not likely to start with this nect one.
Vista may not have started out as a bookmark, but I've got a feeling that's ultimately what it will end up being.
Reply #22 Saturday, September 29, 2007 5:17 PM
I think alot of people forget that this whole *Stick with XP till the End* thing happened when XP was released and 2000 had been the OS of choice. I'll bet money on the fact that it will happen yet again when MS releases the next OS as well.
I'm not forgetting. There are a lot of features I like about Vista, but they're not features that make it easier for the average end user. UAC, for instance, can be disabled, but the average EU hasn't a clue how to do so.
People have been looking for a reason to go somewhere other than Microsoft for a long time, and I believe Vista may give them just such an excuse. Linux distros are becoming easier for the average user, and Vista is becoming more of a hassle.
Windows ME was released simply for people to have something while Windows 2000 was under development.
Actually, Windows 2000 wasn't made for the home market. ME was a replacement for 98, 2000 was a replacement for NT.
(Yes i know MS claims they will have it out in less than 2 1/2 years, but lets be real here, its going to be 3-4 years).
I have to concede this point. MS has not made a single O/S release on time, they're not likely to start with this nect one.
Vista may not have started out as a bookmark, but I've got a feeling that's ultimately what it will end up being.
Philly0381
Reply #24 Saturday, September 29, 2007 5:28 PM
Reply #24 Saturday, September 29, 2007 5:28 PM
I stand corrected, so why isn't it perfect? $6 billion!!! 
NightTrainthedark
Reply #25 Saturday, September 29, 2007 5:28 PM
Fixed that for you.
Reply #25 Saturday, September 29, 2007 5:28 PM
Windows ME was released simply for people to have something while Windows 2000 was under development. It was nothing more than a piece of junk place holder, riddled with serious problems and poorly done. [/quote]
Windows Vista was released simply to keep stockholders at bay. It was nothing more than a piece of junk place holder, riddled with serious problems and poorly done.
Windows Vista was released simply to keep stockholders at bay. It was nothing more than a piece of junk place holder, riddled with serious problems and poorly done.
Fixed that for you.
Astyanax
Reply #26 Saturday, September 29, 2007 5:40 PM
Reply #26 Saturday, September 29, 2007 5:40 PM
No I don't think I said that. You should re-read my post. I don't think you read it properly. 
At any rate, I've noticed topics like these go no where. People have made up their mind and they're going to stick with it, even till death. So.. enjoy your soon-to-be outdated OS.
At any rate, I've noticed topics like these go no where. People have made up their mind and they're going to stick with it, even till death. So.. enjoy your soon-to-be outdated OS.
Gideon MacLeish
Reply #27 Saturday, September 29, 2007 5:53 PM
If by "soon", you mean the 4 more years for which Microsoft has stated they will offer extended support, I will, thanks
.
Or, better still, if by "soon", you mean when Ubuntu stops offering support, I will, thanks.
Youi have an interesting perspective, astyanax. But a limited one.
Reply #27 Saturday, September 29, 2007 5:53 PM
So.. enjoy your soon-to-be outdated OS.
If by "soon", you mean the 4 more years for which Microsoft has stated they will offer extended support, I will, thanks
.Or, better still, if by "soon", you mean when Ubuntu stops offering support, I will, thanks
.Youi have an interesting perspective, astyanax. But a limited one.
Philly0381
Reply #28 Saturday, September 29, 2007 5:53 PM
Reply #28 Saturday, September 29, 2007 5:53 PM
What's so great about topics like this is that we all are able to provide our own opinions, sometimes we might even get a chance to change them. So I beg to differ with you on the statement that these topics go no where. I do agree with you that people do make up their own minds. Isn't that just great!! It's what makes us different.
I'm glad you like Vists, when the next OS does get released this topic can come up again, and believe it or not there will still be people running XP.
I'm glad you like Vists, when the next OS does get released this topic can come up again, and believe it or not there will still be people running XP.
aufisch
Reply #29 Saturday, September 29, 2007 6:22 PM
Reply #29 Saturday, September 29, 2007 6:22 PM
I don't really understand where all the gripe about Vista comes from.
Yes, the improvements over XP are much smaller than initially planned.
Yes, if you have a working XP machine, and are not in the market for a new computer, you might as well stick with XP.
But...
No, Vista is not less stable than its predecessor (that was the biggest downfall of ME, which was much less stable than Win98SE), and as such is not a "second ME".
No, on a new system Vista is certainly not a worse choice than XP. There are things that are a bit easier and there are things that are a bit more difficult.
Maybe I was just lucky: but even though I am running Vista 64bit, I had no problems with my hardware. Scanner, printer, modem, router, blueray keyboard, everything was working from the beginning. Yes, I had to download the newest 64bit drivers for all the products, but I usually did that on my XP machine as well, just to get the newest drivers.
Since February, when I got my new computer running Vista, I had a total of two BSOD's which were caused by me installing not yet officially released OS-updates.
NeverwinterNights2, C&C Tiberium Wars, HOMM V, Age of Empires III, LOTR Battle for Middle Earth 2.... so far no game I threw on it has caused me a single problem, even though they are all written for the 32bit platform. The oldest games I have currently running on Vista without a hitch are C&C Generals and Neverwinter Nights (the first one).
Why anyone would want to run his/her DOS/Win95 games on a 21-inch flat-screen monitor and a DirectX 9 compatible Graphics-card is beyond me. I haven't tested any of those "dinosaurs" on my new computer, because that's what I keep my old laptop for.
Yes, the improvements over XP are much smaller than initially planned.
Yes, if you have a working XP machine, and are not in the market for a new computer, you might as well stick with XP.
But...
No, Vista is not less stable than its predecessor (that was the biggest downfall of ME, which was much less stable than Win98SE), and as such is not a "second ME".
No, on a new system Vista is certainly not a worse choice than XP. There are things that are a bit easier and there are things that are a bit more difficult.
Maybe I was just lucky: but even though I am running Vista 64bit, I had no problems with my hardware. Scanner, printer, modem, router, blueray keyboard, everything was working from the beginning. Yes, I had to download the newest 64bit drivers for all the products, but I usually did that on my XP machine as well, just to get the newest drivers.
Since February, when I got my new computer running Vista, I had a total of two BSOD's which were caused by me installing not yet officially released OS-updates.
NeverwinterNights2, C&C Tiberium Wars, HOMM V, Age of Empires III, LOTR Battle for Middle Earth 2.... so far no game I threw on it has caused me a single problem, even though they are all written for the 32bit platform. The oldest games I have currently running on Vista without a hitch are C&C Generals and Neverwinter Nights (the first one).
Why anyone would want to run his/her DOS/Win95 games on a 21-inch flat-screen monitor and a DirectX 9 compatible Graphics-card is beyond me. I haven't tested any of those "dinosaurs" on my new computer, because that's what I keep my old laptop for.
Gideon MacLeish
Reply #30 Saturday, September 29, 2007 6:28 PM
That's not universally true, aufisch. On these big box machines shipping with 512mb RAM and integrated video, XP is a MUCH better choice. And on the bargain basement computers WalMart is now stocking with VIA chips, I wouldn't even THINK about installing Vista.
Again, the comparison between the two was from a marketing standpoint, NOT from a performance standpoint. And from a marketing standpoint, the comparison is apt.
And if you are upgrading a machine to Vista, it CAN have the same stability issues, depending on the specs of the machine.
But the argument had to do with marketing more than performance. Vista is a good O/S, but not worth the upgrade for many EU's.
Reply #30 Saturday, September 29, 2007 6:28 PM
No, on a new system Vista is certainly not a worse choice than XP.
That's not universally true, aufisch. On these big box machines shipping with 512mb RAM and integrated video, XP is a MUCH better choice. And on the bargain basement computers WalMart is now stocking with VIA chips, I wouldn't even THINK about installing Vista.
No, Vista is not less stable than its predecessor (that was the biggest downfall of ME, which was much less stable than Win98SE), and as such is not a "second ME".
Again, the comparison between the two was from a marketing standpoint, NOT from a performance standpoint. And from a marketing standpoint, the comparison is apt.
And if you are upgrading a machine to Vista, it CAN have the same stability issues, depending on the specs of the machine.
But the argument had to do with marketing more than performance. Vista is a good O/S, but not worth the upgrade for many EU's.
aufisch
Reply #31 Saturday, September 29, 2007 6:32 PM
I agree with that statement, although I hardly can't believe that such machines (with exceptions of some low-end laptops) are still sold, especially now that RAM-prices have fallen.
Reply #31 Saturday, September 29, 2007 6:32 PM
n these big box machines shipping with 512mb RAM and integrated video, XP is a MUCH better choice.
I agree with that statement, although I hardly can't believe that such machines (with exceptions of some low-end laptops) are still sold, especially now that RAM-prices have fallen.
Gideon MacLeish
Reply #32 Saturday, September 29, 2007 6:35 PM
What can I say? It's a WalMart world, sadly.
Reply #32 Saturday, September 29, 2007 6:35 PM
I agree with that statement, although I hardly can't believe that such machines (with exceptions of some low-end laptops) are still sold, especially now that RAM-prices have fallen.
What can I say? It's a WalMart world, sadly.
starkers
Reply #33 Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:00 PM
Reply #33 Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:00 PM
With a large proportion of the world's population listening to a very small percentage saying Vista is dumb and doomed, then I guess it must inevitably be so.
In other words, I've paid good bucks for an OS I'm entirely happy with, and it's gonna go down the unsupported sewer, all because of a few self-proclaimed experts who decided they didn't like it cos they couldn't figure it out.
I've read about primitive cultures, some of which still exist today in various parts of the world, where the witch doctors could say everyone in a particular village will die of some terrible curse....and sure enough, over time they'll all die without apparent cause.
Funny that, in this so-called civilized world, we will say 'but that's all native superstition and bunkum with rational explanations ...yet it seems we have progressed very little from our primitive roots. The witch doctors have pointed the bone at Vista and it's doomed cos the majority blindly heeds the prophets of doom (much like the uneducated villagers taking the witch doctors words as gospel) rather than truly appraise it for themselves to make an informed decision.
I think this is why I can't tolerate film, food or music critics, they draw large salaries to ruin other peoples work with an opinion
And then you have those journos who pick a product to review and carbosh the buggery out of a perfectly good item, simply because they had problems turning it on while drunk late at the office that night....having jammed up the on/off button by slurping their coffee/pizza sauce over it. (yeah, I saw the true confession of a journo on TV who openly admitted to giving a product a bad review because he was to drunk to turn it on, that when had sobered up he still couldn't because it was jammed with food and drink.)
I mean, seriously, it never ceases to amaze me how many people put their trust in the words and opinions of people just like this...in essence, total strangers who may very well totally disgust them with their living habits, yet their word is gospel when it comes to product appraisals....must be true cos they're respected and paid to give it.
As has been said, Vista isn't crap because third party devs didn't keep up or dropped the ball entirely on older products....and why would they have supported it when there'd be much more profit in selling new stuff rather than update drivers, etc. The software and hardware devs had as much time as anyone who was able to access the first Vista betas, so you'd think they would have had a big enough head start to have got things in a little better order before consumers were queuing up for their 'gold' editions.
Well there you have it...but too late, starkers, Microsoft is entirely to blame and Vista is crap, the majority says so, and the (media brainwashed) majority rules, right.
In other words, I've paid good bucks for an OS I'm entirely happy with, and it's gonna go down the unsupported sewer, all because of a few self-proclaimed experts who decided they didn't like it cos they couldn't figure it out.
I've read about primitive cultures, some of which still exist today in various parts of the world, where the witch doctors could say everyone in a particular village will die of some terrible curse....and sure enough, over time they'll all die without apparent cause.
Funny that, in this so-called civilized world, we will say 'but that's all native superstition and bunkum with rational explanations ...yet it seems we have progressed very little from our primitive roots. The witch doctors have pointed the bone at Vista and it's doomed cos the majority blindly heeds the prophets of doom (much like the uneducated villagers taking the witch doctors words as gospel) rather than truly appraise it for themselves to make an informed decision.
I think this is why I can't tolerate film, food or music critics, they draw large salaries to ruin other peoples work with an opinion
And then you have those journos who pick a product to review and carbosh the buggery out of a perfectly good item, simply because they had problems turning it on while drunk late at the office that night....having jammed up the on/off button by slurping their coffee/pizza sauce over it. (yeah, I saw the true confession of a journo on TV who openly admitted to giving a product a bad review because he was to drunk to turn it on, that when had sobered up he still couldn't because it was jammed with food and drink.)
I mean, seriously, it never ceases to amaze me how many people put their trust in the words and opinions of people just like this...in essence, total strangers who may very well totally disgust them with their living habits, yet their word is gospel when it comes to product appraisals....must be true cos they're respected and paid to give it.
As has been said, Vista isn't crap because third party devs didn't keep up or dropped the ball entirely on older products....and why would they have supported it when there'd be much more profit in selling new stuff rather than update drivers, etc. The software and hardware devs had as much time as anyone who was able to access the first Vista betas, so you'd think they would have had a big enough head start to have got things in a little better order before consumers were queuing up for their 'gold' editions.
Well there you have it...but too late, starkers, Microsoft is entirely to blame and Vista is crap, the majority says so, and the (media brainwashed) majority rules, right.
Philly0381
Reply #34 Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:15 PM
Reply #34 Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:15 PM
Going back to what I orginally posted, it would appear that choice of an OS seems to be what Microsoft wants to provide it's customer base. Sure hope that point has not gotten lost in all of this.
It's possible that once SP1 is released for Vista that all of this is cleared up. Then on the other hand.
I believe that Microsoft has said XP will be support of several more years with regualr updates. People will choose which OS works for them or atleast they should.
It's possible that once SP1 is released for Vista that all of this is cleared up. Then on the other hand.
I believe that Microsoft has said XP will be support of several more years with regualr updates. People will choose which OS works for them or atleast they should.
Excalpius
Reply #35 Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:31 PM
Reply #35 Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:31 PM
Let's not forget Microsoft's own arrogance in its handling the release of Vista...
1) It wasn't ready for release. Period. It's only working really well now, by the end of the summer, with drivers and performance upgrades. I now have no qualms about recommending Vista with a new computer buy, but I also make sure my friends have an email full of links to download to make sure their new Vista machine actually works as advertised.
2) They confused the market with WAY TOO MANY subversions (re: crippled versions of Vista Ultimate). OEMS have had to respond by choosing one version, Home Premium, while businesses have just chosen to avoid Vista almost entirely now (despite "business" versions). Vista Basic is just ridiculous marketing spin "see, there IS a cheap version of Vista! Honest!".
3) They are charging monopoly level prices for Vista as if was a compelling product AND we have no choice. Well it isn't compelling (stardock's products are a MUCH more compelling upgrade to XP than Vista is) and we do have choices (XP or OSX).
I've said since before release that there needed to be ONE version of Vista (now called Vista Ultimate) and that it needed to be priced realistically. When XP was released, it represented 10% of the cost of a decent computer. Today, a VERY decent computer is $500. And in today's world, $400 for Ultimate is INSANE.
Now, one could argue that there is a market for two versions of Vista, with the base being what is currently Vista Home Premium (which should include the business networking features that should never have been pulled out of the base OS) and that MS can charge for the PLUS version of Ultimate (additional eye candy and fluff tools/feature like they did with XP Plus). Fair enough.
Regardless, 8 versions of Vista is patently absurd, as is separating the business networking code out of the base version just to charge more (as they did with XP Home and Pro, what a crock). This makes MS looks completely incompetent compared to Apple, for example. And it doesn't pass the "smell test" of even the staunchest MS supporter, as I used to be.
They screwed the pooch here big time.
My recommendations, when SP1 is working and ready (and thus Vista rocks like it should have), re-release VISTA (which is Vista Home Premium + Business) and VISTA ULTIMATE (as the "I have money to burn and show off to keep up with the Joneses" version). LOWER THE PRICE. $100 seems right for Vista with another $50-100 for the Ultimate version (depending on if there are any actual extras in it worth paying for).
Otherwise, Vista is ONLY going to sell OEM via trickles for the rest of this year while XP continues to hold business users for 2-4 YEARS as they have no reason to upgrade to Vista...at all.
1) It wasn't ready for release. Period. It's only working really well now, by the end of the summer, with drivers and performance upgrades. I now have no qualms about recommending Vista with a new computer buy, but I also make sure my friends have an email full of links to download to make sure their new Vista machine actually works as advertised.
2) They confused the market with WAY TOO MANY subversions (re: crippled versions of Vista Ultimate). OEMS have had to respond by choosing one version, Home Premium, while businesses have just chosen to avoid Vista almost entirely now (despite "business" versions). Vista Basic is just ridiculous marketing spin "see, there IS a cheap version of Vista! Honest!".
3) They are charging monopoly level prices for Vista as if was a compelling product AND we have no choice. Well it isn't compelling (stardock's products are a MUCH more compelling upgrade to XP than Vista is) and we do have choices (XP or OSX).
I've said since before release that there needed to be ONE version of Vista (now called Vista Ultimate) and that it needed to be priced realistically. When XP was released, it represented 10% of the cost of a decent computer. Today, a VERY decent computer is $500. And in today's world, $400 for Ultimate is INSANE.
Now, one could argue that there is a market for two versions of Vista, with the base being what is currently Vista Home Premium (which should include the business networking features that should never have been pulled out of the base OS) and that MS can charge for the PLUS version of Ultimate (additional eye candy and fluff tools/feature like they did with XP Plus). Fair enough.
Regardless, 8 versions of Vista is patently absurd, as is separating the business networking code out of the base version just to charge more (as they did with XP Home and Pro, what a crock). This makes MS looks completely incompetent compared to Apple, for example. And it doesn't pass the "smell test" of even the staunchest MS supporter, as I used to be.
They screwed the pooch here big time.
My recommendations, when SP1 is working and ready (and thus Vista rocks like it should have), re-release VISTA (which is Vista Home Premium + Business) and VISTA ULTIMATE (as the "I have money to burn and show off to keep up with the Joneses" version). LOWER THE PRICE. $100 seems right for Vista with another $50-100 for the Ultimate version (depending on if there are any actual extras in it worth paying for).
Otherwise, Vista is ONLY going to sell OEM via trickles for the rest of this year while XP continues to hold business users for 2-4 YEARS as they have no reason to upgrade to Vista...at all.
Philly0381
Reply #36 Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:31 PM
Reply #36 Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:31 PM
I appreciate all the replies on this post. Most of the stuff I put in the forums doesn't get anywheres this much activity.
Opinions aside it would appear that Microsoft is doing some rethingking about it current OS (Vista). Some food for thought, one of two seasons for buying or upgrading a computer is coming up, the Holidays. Doesn't it seem interesting that they would announce an extendion of the period of time for buying a computer with XP loaded now.
Opinions aside it would appear that Microsoft is doing some rethingking about it current OS (Vista). Some food for thought, one of two seasons for buying or upgrading a computer is coming up, the Holidays. Doesn't it seem interesting that they would announce an extendion of the period of time for buying a computer with XP loaded now.
Gideon MacLeish
Reply #37 Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:35 PM
OSX isn't a choice on a PC.
But you, again, neglected to include Linux among the choices. Ubuntu 7.04 basically works "out of the box" with many systems; my Dell GX240 was surfing the 'net 28 minutes after initial CD boot...with a full install.
Reply #37 Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:35 PM
(stardock's products are a MUCH more compelling upgrade to XP than Vista is) and we do have choices (XP or OSX).
OSX isn't a choice on a PC.
But you, again, neglected to include Linux among the choices. Ubuntu 7.04 basically works "out of the box" with many systems; my Dell GX240 was surfing the 'net 28 minutes after initial CD boot...with a full install.
Gideon MacLeish
Reply #38 Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:38 PM
Philly,
Yes. And these holidays promise to be exciting. I actually have a big computer purchase planned for the holidays. I will be purchasing an
laptop for my children, to participate in OLPC's "give one, get one" campaign.
So the MS announcement won't affect me! LOL!
Reply #38 Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:38 PM
ions aside it would appear that Microsoft is doing some rethingking about it current OS (Vista). Some food for thought, one of two seasons for buying or upgrading a computer is coming up, the Holidays. Doesn't it seem interesting that they would announce an extendion of the period of time for buying a computer with XP loaded now.
Philly,
Yes. And these holidays promise to be exciting. I actually have a big computer purchase planned for the holidays. I will be purchasing an
laptop for my children, to participate in OLPC's "give one, get one" campaign.So the MS announcement won't affect me! LOL!
Daiwa
Reply #39 Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:46 PM
Reply #39 Saturday, September 29, 2007 7:46 PM
I stuck with Win2k until my machine broke & had to be replaced (lasted 10 years, BTW), simply because it was stable as a rock & worked*. In fact, we still have about 15 Win2k boxes (all also 10 years old) running on our office network (out of ~22 total), using a W2k3 Server.
I will stick with XPPro until the machine I bought 6 weeks ago breaks (and maybe beyond - I have an unopened OEM XPP disc on hand), simply because it is stable as a rock & works*. That will limit my ability to skin for WB, but that is a hobby.
*The OS facilitates getting your work done; is, in other words, efficient, and not an obstacle to be overcome.
I will stick with XPPro until the machine I bought 6 weeks ago breaks (and maybe beyond - I have an unopened OEM XPP disc on hand), simply because it is stable as a rock & works*. That will limit my ability to skin for WB, but that is a hobby.
*The OS facilitates getting your work done; is, in other words, efficient, and not an obstacle to be overcome.
Excalpius
Reply #40 Saturday, September 29, 2007 8:37 PM
Since most people have to buy a new computer to use Vista, MS has given Apple a terrible opportunity to capitalize on this. People who are upgrading an existing PC are more likely to stay with the same paradigm (which now Jobs can offer with a new computer with bootcamp btw). But people buying a new computer are going to consider Apple and it was foolish of MS to ignore this and/or make life so much easier for Steve Jobs. HUGE mistake.
I ignored Linux because it remains a hobbyist's OS. Ubuntu has done a good job of providing a solid "end-user 101" desktop experience out of of the box, as you say. In other words, consumers can browse the Internet and get/send email under Linux now. And that's great.
However, since the hardware cost is the same across all OS's, the $100 one saves by going with Linux is not proportional to the value added by Windows' massive software and hardware legacy or Apple's superior bundleware (i.e. iLife applications). So I still can't recommend anyone a Linux desktop to the 99% of modern computer users.
I encourage Linux devotees to continue pushing, especially with MS tripping so badly with Vista. This is a perfect time for someone (anyone?!) to move Linux into a viable consumer contender. Will it happen?
Reply #40 Saturday, September 29, 2007 8:37 PM
OSX isn't a choice on a PC.
But you, again, neglected to include Linux among the choices. Ubuntu 7.04 basically works "out of the box" with many systems; my Dell GX240 was surfing the 'net 28 minutes after initial CD boot...with a full install.
But you, again, neglected to include Linux among the choices. Ubuntu 7.04 basically works "out of the box" with many systems; my Dell GX240 was surfing the 'net 28 minutes after initial CD boot...with a full install.
Since most people have to buy a new computer to use Vista, MS has given Apple a terrible opportunity to capitalize on this. People who are upgrading an existing PC are more likely to stay with the same paradigm (which now Jobs can offer with a new computer with bootcamp btw). But people buying a new computer are going to consider Apple and it was foolish of MS to ignore this and/or make life so much easier for Steve Jobs. HUGE mistake.
I ignored Linux because it remains a hobbyist's OS. Ubuntu has done a good job of providing a solid "end-user 101" desktop experience out of of the box, as you say. In other words, consumers can browse the Internet and get/send email under Linux now. And that's great.
However, since the hardware cost is the same across all OS's, the $100 one saves by going with Linux is not proportional to the value added by Windows' massive software and hardware legacy or Apple's superior bundleware (i.e. iLife applications). So I still can't recommend anyone a Linux desktop to the 99% of modern computer users.
I encourage Linux devotees to continue pushing, especially with MS tripping so badly with Vista. This is a perfect time for someone (anyone?!) to move Linux into a viable consumer contender. Will it happen?
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 2 of 3 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Saturday, September 29, 2007 5:17 PM
I'm sure you didn't mean Billions, if they did spend that much one would expect a perfect OS. No they didn't set out to creat the next ME, but unfortunately it would appear that they did model their business plan after ME's. What does that mean, it wasn't ready for release, otherwise 3rd party developers would have had time to have drivers ready.