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.
Nope, I didn't have my new website up and running at the time I turned it in...
I about lost it when I read that line.
I still snicker when I see it...8^)
[tips hat]
Just doing my little part to keep the discourse civil.
It's a good one!
Well said,
You can find an instance of pretty much anone who spends time on the tech threads arguing with anyone else at some point (e.g. Echo and I on an OSX thread a little bit ago) but both He and I (and, for that matter, 99% of people on any of the Technology related pingss) can agrue, even take sarcastic swipes at eachother and keep it generally civil
There are some hypocrites in every camp, but, in my experience, most open source people really are dedicated to the freedom of software (as in speech, not beer).
When they do, it won't all be to free software like Linux, but to other products like Apple OSX and Sun Solaris instead.
One interesting thing about this comment: all of the software you are looking at (OSX, Solaris, and Linux) are UNIX derivatives of some stripe (Apple has FreeBSD code, along with Mach, in its kernel, Solaris is a UNIX descendant, and Linux is a UNIX clone). If Solaris or OSX can take market share from Windows, why not Linux?
Hopefully most of it will, since those are American products owned by American companies, and not a foreign born fake like Linux
How is Linux a "foreign born fake"? Why does the country of origin matter (within the limits of national security, which is not an issue here) if it's a better product? The free-market is all about ferretting out that which is inferior through competition.
What is this beef you have with Linux? I've seen people who didn't know about it, didn't like it, or couldn't use it (because it wouldn't fit their framework), but you are the first I have ever seen who genuinely loathes it. Why?
Because they USE the software, not sell it. Where I work, we have a lot of programs developed in-house that are not sold outside the company, but are used solely for internal purposes.
Exactly;whatever OS is installed on the majority of new computers wins by default.Microsoft knows this.
Windows is standard in the business world and it would take a huge improvement for something else to displace it.
I don't love Microsoft and despise the DRM people as I have multiple computers personal use and see no moral reason why I should have to pay for more than one copy of any song,etc as I can only use one copy at a time.
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.