Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, CEO Steve Ballmer - Windows 7 Preview

Wall Street Journal AllThingsD.com (excerpt) ^ | May 27, 2008 | John Paczkowski

[HAL9000]

Excerpt -

Switching gears. Walt asks about Vista and the lousy reception it’s been given. Is Vista a failure?

Ballmer: Vista is not a failure. Is it something we’d like to improve? Of course. Is it something that with 20/20 hindsight we’d do differently? Sure, he confesses. But Vista has sold a lot of copies, he adds.

Walt jumps in and asks about the percentage of Vista sales that result in downgrades to XP. Ballmer dodges. Gates looking a little depressed.

Walt asks if Vista has damaged with Windows brand.

Gates says Microsoft’s philosophy is to “do things better.” And Vista has given us lots of opportunity to do that, he notes. (Audience laughter.) There are plenty of lessons out of Vista–compatibility and other issues vendors are concerned about.

Ballmer says that according to consumer research, the No. 1 complaint about Vista was the change to the Windows user interface.

The conversation turns to Windows 7, which Microsoft hasn’t said too much about. Clearly, the company has learned from the media beating it took over the defeatured and perennially delayed Windows Vista. Indeed, in a post to the Windows Vista blog today, Microsoft’s Chris Flore noted that Microsoft is being very careful about releasing details about Windows 7. “What is a little different today is when and how we are talking about the next version of Windows,” Flore wrote. “So, why the change in approach? We know that when we talk about our plans for the next release of Windows, people take action. As a result, we can significantly impact our partners and our customers if we broadly share information that later changes. With Windows 7, we’re trying to more carefully plan how we share information with our customers and partners. This means sharing the right level of information at the right time depending on the needs of the audience.”

Well, apparently this is the right time and the right audience, because we’re about to get a Windows 7 demo (Oh, one more thing …. Here’s hoping Microsoft shares only those aspects of the new OS that it doesn’t end up de-featuring at a later date.)

Ballmer says what we’re about to see is “just a snippet” of Windows 7.

~ snip ~

[Golden Eagle]

IMO, Linux was never really for the desktop/end-user.

Poor Linus Torvalds, who moved here all the way from Finland but has recently said quote “I have never, ever cared about really anything but the Linux desktop.” Now he has to sit here and watch Apple eat his lunch.

[zeugma]

Ballmer jumps in. Hits that 290 million metric again. “

LOL. 

 

The proper response: "McDonanlds has sold billions of hamburgers. What's your point?"

[TomGuy]

The Jobs video was posted in 2007. It does not give a date (that I saw) of when he made that statement.

The statment I was referring to was made over 10 years ago at a techno conference/interview about technology and its development. I am pretty sure it was made by Gates.

[Golden Eagle]

Jobs comment was made in 1996 per wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_of_the_Nerds

What’s your reference for Gates making it instead?

[AustinBill]

Agree. When Vista came out I decided then that XP would be my last Windows machine. I had hoped to move to Linux but for the reasons you cite (and others) have concluded that desktop Linux will remain a hobbyist market indefinitely. The Mac, however, has positioned itself as a universal platform. The general user can view it as a “better PC” (you really can’t appreciate the jaw-dropping difference in display quality until you see an iMac running side-by-side against Windows). The power user can view it as a universal platform that in addition to all the Mac goodies can run a network of virtual machines of any desired flavor. I run Windows XP, Windows 2000, and Linux simultaneously on my iMac (using VMWare Fusion) and everything just works. The iMac is beautifully designed and best of all is completely silent. I’m very happy with it.

[antiRepublicrat]

Windows 7--unlike Vista--will probably ditch a lot of legacy code in favor of faster operation.

I just read the latest -- no stripped, modular Windows 7 that finally ditches legacy. It will follow the XP pattern of building codebases, XP-W2K3-Vista is now Vista-W2K8-Win7.

[ReignOfError]

If apple ran the software I need, I would. My best bet is Linux.

What is the software you need? As HAL9000 pointed out, Linux runs just dandy on Macs, and a lot of software written for Linux (or for any *ix) has been ported to Mac.

[ReignOfError]

If Linux would get its act together and come out with one ‘distro’ [whatever the heck that is], it might make some serious inroads.

Not gonna happen. Distro is short for distribution. Linux is open source, and any Tom, Dick or Linus can distribute his own version.

For example, if Linux came out with one desktop home version, they might effectively challenge MS’s Windows Home.

[...]Linux is working against itself by continuing the multitude of flavors.

There is no "it," and there will never be a One True Linux. That's part of the whole open-source idea, which is the main reason Linux is free. But if one Linux distro could package its OS with a pretty interface and an easy install "wizard," then seal it in shrink wrap and bundle it with off-the-shelf PCs, you'd have something like what you describe.

The problem is, it's been tried, and it didn't cut into Windows' market share much at the consumer level. Never mind that Linux will handle the same documents, connect to the same servers, and browse the same Web sites as Windows, a lot of folks want to run the same binaries as all their friends.

It was bad enough 20 years ago, when we had PC DOS or MS DOS or OS/2, GEM Desktop or Windows Desktop, WordPerfect or Word or Wordstar.

Yeah, it really sucked when there was competition. Isn't a monopoly much tidier?

I just don’t want to spend the time to learn Linux and determine the differences to find one version that best suits may usage.

If you don't take the time to become an informed consumer, then you get whatever crap is easiest to buy. That's true with everything you buy.

[TomGuy]

If you don't take the time to become an informed consumer, then you get whatever crap is easiest to buy. That's true with everything you buy.

So, Linux and related is actually a build-your-own kit.

Okay. I finally understand.

[goldstategop]

All Linux distros may have differing package systems but they both have a variety of windows GUI environments. Microsoft offers only one. And I think choice is good. Microsoft wants you to think its bad. Linux is just fantastic in what it offers consumers - for free. You can't beat a large community of open source users, who make each new version of the OS. Product release cycles are both fast and predictable. Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer can't say that about Windows. Here's a fact they don't want you to know: Linux can run on the new generation of low cost, low powered processor Netbooks with no problem. All they've got to offer you is Windows XP cause Microsoft dropped the ball on that end of the computing market.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[HAL9000]

You do know that Jobs copied the GUI idea from Xerox?

The Mac user interface was inspired by some concepts at Xerox PARC (and Stanford and other places), but the look-and-feel of the Mac GUI was substantially different from the Alto and Star, including a lot of Apple innovations like desk ornaments.

In contrast, Microsoft shamelessly attempts to copy the look-and-feel of Apple's user interface technologies. The Windows 7 demo probably infringes on some of Apple's patents.

[goldstategop]

You don't have to! KDE has a Windows look and feel and there's a large variety of software available for installation. In PCLOS, the most popular distro these days, all the aoplications you need come out of the box. And more can be installed through Synaptic. It takes less than 15 minutes to install it from a CD and it detects all your hardware out of the box and you can be on the Internet within minutes. Best of all, there's no need to install any anti-virus or security software. Linux is stable and immune from the BSOD and other glitches that plague Windows. The Linux Desktop has come of age.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[goldstategop]

Apple, which of course, is based on BSD. Its as attractive as Linux can get when developed and market by a major company.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[DesScorp]

“Ballmer says that according to consumer research, the No. 1 complaint about Vista was the change to the Windows user interface.”

Balmer needs to get a new research firm. Overwhelmingly, the biggest complaint that I’ve seen is that Vista makes even brand new hardware run like a 386.

I was hopeful when the rumors of the MiniWin kernel came out, but apparently, Windows 7 is just going to be Vista with even more eye candy. Apple’s sales should continue to grow then. If it wasn’t for the availability of PC games, I’d abandon Windows at home altogether.

[HAL9000]

Windows 7--unlike Vista--will probably ditch a lot of legacy code in favor of faster operation.

They make that claim about every version of Windows, but they will continue to rely on PC-DOS-era legacy code until they create a new operating system that isn't called "Windows".

[Golden Eagle]

Apple, which of course, is based on BSD. Its as attractive as Linux can get when developed and market by a major company.

BSD is real Unix, Linux is a foreign clone that's been picked up in the US by IBM, which despite being a much bigger computer company hasn't had the same level of success. Mainly because the license is different, which allows Apple to keep parts of the O/S private, so their competitors can't use them in other products. Conversely anything that goes into Linux can instantly be used by competitors, hence the best features almost always get put into Linux last.

[Golden Eagle]

In contrast, Microsoft shamelessly attempts to copy the look-and-feel of Apple's user interface technologies. The Windows 7 demo probably infringes on some of Apple's patents.

They might, and if so should face consequence, but if anyone is ripping anyone off these days, it's Linux. Most of those publishers don't even believe in patents, and many of their surrogates are making near exact copies of OSX and even Windows. Mac4Lin is one of many.

[antiRepublicrat]

I wish we could all get our terminology straight to avoid confusion. I hear too many “Linux == Unix” comments. Then we need to get straight what “Unix” is. Are we talking codebase, functionality or trademark (certified)? If we’re talking codebase, that’s Novell’s (sorry SCO). If we’re talking functionality, that’s a lot of operating systems equally, including Linux and BSD. If we’re talking trademark, only OS X, AIX, Solaris and HP-UX are allowed to be marketed as modern UNIX.

While we’re at it, I’d like to get rid of the term “Intellectual Property.” It causes and/or shows confusion in almost every thread I see it in.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

The Mac user interface was inspired by some concepts at Xerox PARC (and Stanford and other places), but the look-and-feel of the Mac GUI was substantially different from the Alto and Star, including a lot of Apple innovations like desk ornaments.

While the look and feel of the Mac interface is different from the PARC model, the Mac's predecessor's (Lisa) interface was not. Not to mention that PARC is where the whole idea of a mouse-driven interface originated.

I always like to hear folks talk about how innovative and fast Apple's early OS was.

What is never mentioned is that you had to have a lot of memory because Apple recommended that virtual memory be turned off to speed up the system. When virtual memory was turned on, the so-called speedy Mac suddenly slowed to a crawl.

Ever get an out of memory error on a Mac? Ever had to close an app to cure an out of memory condition? Since the Mac OS lacked memory protection, a memory error usually took down the entire system. It took Apple 13 years to fix this little 'feature'. (OS 7.6 --1997)

Of course, the Mac had it's own version of Microsoft's BSoD --the bomb icon.

And, we can't forget the force-quit, which usually meant the system locked up requiring a power-off, and disk check upon power-up.

Funny how the Apple devotees never mention these 'innovations'. Oh, sure these were fixed and later rendered moot by OSX, but they were there, nonetheless and they were there for a long, long time.

[antiRepublicrat]

And I think choice is good.

Choice is good, but consumers don't like too much choice. They go to buy a computer and are already confused from the start, and just get further confused by all the choices they have to make. Reducing choice is IMHO one of the reasons Apple is doing so well. It's easy to look at their desktop or laptop offerings (only three categories in each: pro, consumer, ultra-small) to make the first choice of what is desired, and then pick among a few choices within that which are given as clear differentiations (15" or 17"? 20" or 24"? More speed?).

We already see the damage done to Vista with multiple versions out there, choice people don't want. OS X, one version with everything. Linux, which of several versions do you want? The average consumer doesn't want to have to make that choice.

That's not to say full choice isn't good for those who know what they're doing, but the geeks will never define the desktop market.