OSS PING
If you are interested in the OSS ping list please mail me
Posted on 05/30/2006 11:51:59 AM PDT by N3WBI3
The opening of Beta 2 testing at WinHEC for Windows Vista has once again raised serious questions about Microsoft's ability to keep its promises. We have witnessed up until now the inexhaustible reservoir of excuses coming from MS's officials, who have continuously fed us with plenty of reasons for Vista's delay: they're working on security, they're trying to make it more reliable for business, etc. Although it was initially destined to make its public debut way back in 2002, following years haven't shown us more than small bits of what was to become Microsoft's best product in more than 10 years.
The Beta 2 testing last week didn't bring much hope for most of us, including software and hardware producers too. Developers' feedback, although not a big surprise, turned out to be more than reserved concerning the overall quality of Vista, inducing the-again-not-so-unexpected idea that there is still a lot of work to do in this domain. Moreover, rumors concerning a yet another delay of Vista, previously announced for public appearance in January 2007, came out from CEO Steve Ballmer himself this week, despite his subsequent declarations that "Vista is on track". Developers that have tested Vista even suggest that it is possible for Microsoft not to reach its goal of delivering Vista to corporate customers in November 2006.
It would be a mistake to consider that we are now heading for disaster. Maybe Ballmer's declarations are true and MAYBE Vista shall publicly appear in January 2007. But what's done is done. Microsoft cannot erase what it has implemented in customer's mind: "the best product in 10 years". All the delays pinpointed to one thing: "we are working at improving Vista". So a public release next year without the superior quality that customers are longing for would be an even harder hit to MS's already shooked-up image. The smallest security flaw in Vista would immediately become a gap of global proportions, capable of allowing all the Evil things in the world enter through it (including viruses of course...). Any oversight of a particular aspect in Vista will have huge repercaussions for the entire OS, casting a dim shadow upon the overall impression. And Aero will definitely not be able to compensate it...
There are other reasons to consider while investigating the possible failure of Redmond-giant flagship product. First of all: the price. Microsoft announced that Vista will not show its beautiful face (Aero) to those who possess pirated copies. So if you want to have 3D windows on your screen you'd have to pay a larger sum than for XP (after all, Vista requires 15 G of free space on your hard drive).
Jack Messman, CEO Novell, had already stated since september 2005, during Novell’s Brain Share, which took place in Barcelona, Spain, that switching from Windows XP to Windows Vista will be more expensive than switching from Windows XP to Linux. So far, Microsoft hasn’t published any details about the price scheme it plans for Windows Vista, but ever since the Redmond company announced the hardware requirements, many experts have started to link the fee for a license with the amounts of money that will be invested in a PC that would allow you to run the OS.
And thus we have reached the second reason for Vista's envisioned failure. In order to run it properly not only that you'd have to license it, but you'd also have to think of spending more money on hardware. And this is bad news not only for retail customers but also for middle to small size companies, that don't possess enough money to change their computers like corporations do. And when we think that Vista might not be as reliable and secure as everyone expects...
This is where Linux comes on stage. It's totally free (well, most of the distros are). It has proven its reliability over time and it has convinced IT managers from large corporations (like IBM) to local authorities (like the French Gendarmerie or the Norwegian and Spanish government)to switch to it instead of Windows XP. Servers or desktops running Linux don't suffer from hoax, worms or spyware and they do not provide BSODs (blue screens of death, typically a source of irony for both Windows and Linux users). As for Aero, KDE desktop did long time ago a lot of the things Aero shall do in 2007, and with a whole lot less hardware resources. Not to mention that Novell's XGL Desktop is already not one, but two steps ahead of Aero: at least 1Ghz processor, a minimum of 256 system RAM and an old GeForce MX 400. And visual effects are staggering compared to Aero (just imagine a cube- which is your desktop- and a film being presented on two of its sides...). And last, but not least, the many "flavors" of Linux, which allow the user to turn freely and with no supplementary cost from one distro to another, or even run it from a live-CD/USB flash. And if that's not enough for you, just think at how much will Vista resist getting its Aero GUI pirated...
All in all, the probably unanimous conclusion is that with or without Vista's release in 2007 the winner is Linux. Paradoxically enough, just as many have suggested before, Microsoft shall boost Linux's popularity no matter what Vista will bring new to the OS market. Still, if rumors concerning a new delay of Vista are true, MS's credibility (already at low levels in recent years) will drop significantly, and with it, the finances too.
OSS PING
If you are interested in the OSS ping list please mail me
Mr. Cyberlord's bias is showing. Breathless dialog in what's supposed to be a technical article is the giveaway.
Dialog? Who was the other party to the dialog?
This means your PC will slow to a crawl. Plus, who can write 15 gig of error free code ? This thing needs to be scraped and they need to start over. The OS needs fewer features, few bugs, and zero security flaws.
LMAO, wanna bet?
Vista has already lost at my company.
"Windows Vista vs. Linux"
Vista is figthing with Linux?
Who knew?
Where's the tickets at? :)
LOL here comes newbi3 with his lies about microsoft support again! He never has admitted they are still providing Windows 2000 security patches till 2010, and despite being caught on those lies is now attempting new lies about Windows xp support. So according to you MS is going to cut off support for xp before 2010 huh. Got any proof this time (of course not)?
The fact is that Vista will be an utter flop and Linux is at worst going to hold steady (if not going to gain)--and all the cards on the table show this.
Especially so among the computer savvy and in IT departments, as companies try to find ways to cut costs.
Personally, I don't think Vista's going to be taken too well by the public and will exist only on new computers manufactured after its release.
IOW--not many people are going to have a reason to swap out XP for Vista.
Vista isn't going to be the revolutionary jump (like from 3.1x to Win95; 98SE & ME to 2k and XP) that Microsoft thinks it is.
From what I've seen, it's just an updated XP with puffed-up eye candy--so if anything, I'll wait until a.) I get a new computer that has Vista already installed, or b.) wait and see what Vienna is going to offer.
In any case though, I'd be willing to bet that Windows alternatives will see gains--and especially if Apple cuts the prices of some of their computers and/or releases a plain x86 version of Leopard. Linux and other *nix-like OSs will see a boom among savvy users and IT pros.
And MS will have egg on its face...again. Much like it did after releasing Windows ME.
Fact? LOL
It's lost at my firm too - after I introduced them to Ubuntu, that became the upgrade path after support for Windows 2000 runs out.
Regards, Ivan
That is a very good thing for everybody but Microsoft.
Microsoft can still thrive, but not with their current approach.
Vista will have a lower adoption rate then XP. XP was lower then 2Ks. There have simply been no new killer apps that require OS upgrades.
As far as making an active effort to convert, IMO they both lose - whether Vista is "good" or not, there's no compelling reason to upgrade from XP, and Linux is too big of a pain to try to migrate to for marginal if any benefit (for typical home/small business networks, anyway), so why buy anything when there's XP now?
Eventually Vista will "win" by default because a copy will be included on every new PC. Unless someone figures out how to market a Linux distro as the default OS for a major PC manufacturer, MS will continue to control 90+% of the OS market without really having to try.
Yeah, I'm sure it was given a fair chance to win {{rolls eyes heavenward}}
Let's compare where it really counts ... profits. Something tells me that Vista is not losing in that department.
Ah, don't you just love delusions of grandeur?
Unfortunately my kids hated it, so my attempts to put it on their PC's didn't pan out. I still have it on one of my laptops and use it pretty regularly.
Yep.
If most companies are going to keep Windows, they're likely not going to upgrade to Vista. It just won't make sense to upgrade.
Sure there might be some people who want it because it's the newest thing. But in the end, reliability is a hell of a lot more important than novelty.
And novelty is what Vist is, quite frankly.
Your bosses et al. at Microsoft probably think differently though...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.