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.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Since their admitted goal is "to make propietary software obsolete", a guy like softwarecreator would have to find another paying profession.
But obviously the money from software companies runs out eventually, if they're giving their software away or being replaced by those that do. The free software guys say they plan on making their money for "support". Who in the heck wants to have to pay for software support? Or be using software that needs it?
For the zillionth time: OSS DOES NOT EQUAL FSF!!!!
Apparently, that little tidbit is conveniently left out--though I can't blame you.
Your bosses at Microsoft must really be cracking down on you, eh?
No, stupid is making errors when posting to point out someone else's errors.
It's a PDA I'm using, and I still have better English than most of you guys. Back to your inferno, enjoy your burn...
Well, that's one OS I've never used. But isn't XP geared more toward desktop use while this WTS, form what you are saying, is a server. How can they be compared?
I have a solid 3 year contract. Beyond that ... well who knows?
I honestly don't see Open Source as a real threat to my career. I think it'll take 10+ years for Linux to be a force against MS. I already know C++, C, Java and PHP, as well as all MS languages, so I'll be okay. I adapt to changes pretty well, I guess.
Sure.
It's all the equipment's fault.
Hypocrite.
You seem like a pretty laid back type of guy.
GE, are you watching this? This guy can question the concept of OSS without drawing flames to himself...
You watching, GE? Figure it out yet? You need to be more like this guy.
Hear me?
Thanks for coming on here and posting, softwarecreator. You're a reminder to us Linux users that people can not care much for Linux and still not act like horses' butts about it.
That'd be me as well. The reason for the comparrison to XP is the system restore feature, unique to Windows ME and Windows XP.
i have to agree with your comments. i have Windows ME on two machines, a Toshiba Satellite laptop, and a custom built system that was given to me. Windows ME has more than met my needs on those machines. Oddly enough, the only problems i've had were with Internet Explorer.
The new meds I've been taking are working pretty good, huh?
WTS is a user desktop when you don't have a windows machine, as in, say you are using a Sun Blade and you need to access Windows, WTS is the tool we use at WPAFB.....
It's actually very similar to XP but, as you said, it's run directly on the server.
If XP was nearly as stable as WTS, well, it isn't so why bother?
Ah, I see now. Thanks for the info.
If XP was nearly as stable as WTS, well, it isn't so why bother?
I like XP overall, but you are right it's way too unstable, particularly when running for a long period of time.
LOL, "Flaming Death" calls for peace.
Oh I'm not predicting Stallman and his ilk will take over the future of the industry, just pointing out what it might be like if they did. Their current attacks on patents and DRM are losing, big in the US.
No, he mentioned that we accept reasoned and logical dissent.
You, OTOH, just disrupt with the same pathetic drivel--and we're tired of it.
If you have a rational and logical viewpoint that we can follow, and then actually defend that argument with hard evidence.
Clearly though, and with all due respect, I highly doubt you're capable of doing that--thus you're little more than an annoying entertainment piece.
If the company's business is not software, they get the benefit of being able to use the software generated to improve their business.
It's a win-win situation - furthermore, as I said, the costs of development and quality assurance are dropped dramatically by participation in an Open Source project, rather than by doing everything in a proprietary manner.
Regards, Ivan
I don't expect such facts or such logic to move you off your worship of the throne of Bill, but this is actually what is happening. The Economist ran an article about this a couple of months ago.
Ivan
ha!
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.