Bloatware. Silly how much activity goes on in that OS even for the simplest things.
Its a humorous story. To be honest...Windows XP has pretty much maxed out whatever you wanted it to do...and I think the mass of users really don’t have any huge expectations anymore. The geek squad might....but most of us see no reason to buy into the next round.
Even if we discuss Office 97...most of us with copies of this...will agree that upgrading to Office 2003 or Office 2007...is really not necessary. Office 97 does what ninety percent of us want.
I admit being a humble daily user of Microsoft products and certainly not a Geek...but if you asked me...saying that Windows is just about “finished”...would be a joke.
•
I supported OS/2 warp until 2006 on a network because it worked for the need.
If Microsoft came out with Windows Lite, that was guaranteed to contain no legacy code and was lean and mean, I would pay extra for it. I want something that can run basic software efficiently, and want all the rest of it to just go away.
Nowadays, to get the same thing, I get it for free from open sources. But that is a hassle I could do without.
Tech list PING!
(Your computer out of hibernation in Houston yet??)
Thus completing the Windows Vista / Windows ME analogies.
ah, Windows. The OS for stupid people...
And what will be replacing Windows in stores tomorrow?
Right here.
Win OS is running the vast majority of corp systems, and home systems. I run Win OS on my servers and rarely have a problem. I suggest that if you can do better, then do it.
The only reason I’m still running Windows on my home boxen is for gaming. A good Linux distro, Firefox, and OpenOffice (which I use under Windows anyway) would cover me otherwise.
I’m building new machines next month, and unfortunately, they’ll be running Vista 64-bit Home Premium...simply because I don’t trust Microsquish to not yank the carpet out from under XP at some point and leave me hanging a year down the road. But you can bet I’ll be stripping it down as much as possible and turning off every “feature” I can.
I don’t want an OS to make me coffee, fluff my pillows, and turn my impending new Core 2 Duo E8400 into a Pentium III. I want the OS to keep the computer running and get the hell out of my way while I run the apps I want, that’s it.
}:-)4
Such as? Seriously. What radical changes are they urging?
What is it that they think Microsoft needs to do in order to make Windows dramatically better.
The simple fact is that most people are at least satisfied if not happy with Windows XP.
As for wanting Windows on smaller devices, Microsoft has Windows Mobile, Windows CE, and Windows Embedded. Windows Embedded is a slimed down version of Windows. CE and Mobile are made to run on different processor types, but still allow developers to use many of the same tools and libraries.
It's no surprise that most Windows users didn't run out and upgrade to Vista. That's pretty consistent with past releases as well. It's nothing new. If anything people are slower to move towards Vista simply because XP has been a good, solid, and reliable product. It's not perfect of course, but it was a big step up from past versions and really satisfied the needs of most users.
It's hard to get people to pay upgrade and migration costs when what they have suits their needs.
So these brilliant researchers are suggesting that Microsoft needs to make radical changes, but they didn't seem to have much in the way of suggestions for radical changes.
I'm guessing that they are pretty much as much at a loss as everyone else as to what Microsoft should do next with their PC OS.
Microsoft's problem is that their products have finally matured to the point where the to do list has shrunk to minor things, and they are having a hard time finding ways to add significant amounts of value to new versions.
That's good for consumers, but not good news for Microsoft's continued growth.
They are evolving their products in relatively minor ways as slightly different hardware becomes available, and as the market changes slightly.
However, unless there are radical changes in hardware, I have a hard time understanding what radical changes Microsoft is going to make that are going to add lots of value for consumers.
If I were Microsoft I would produce a legacy free operating system. For those who want legacy they can use XP and Vista
But M$ should start anew on a whole new base. Or steal from Unix (was it BSD) like Apple did. MS is going through some serious Apple envy here. Make a legacy free OS for at least some consumers. Give software and hardware manufacturers plenty of lead time to develop new products that can mesh with the new OS
One of Steve Jobs’ smartest decisions was to start fresh with OSX as an entirely new OS. A lot of users grumbled at the time but no longer. Is it possible for Microsoft to do the same?
Never buy a computer with Vista installed on it. It has been nothing but a huge headache. It has the uncanny ability of making a DSL line as slow as a dial-up system, and that’s not what we are paying for. Taking it off is a bigger production than junking the hard drive and starting over.
I work for a company that provides network support, desktop support and integration support for small and medium sized businesses. Not a single one of our clients has made the jump to Vista, largely because their business software vendors have nixed it.
If you call a support line for ANYTHING, the first question they ask is “are you running Vista?” Unfortunately, every vendor on the planet is blaming every glitch on Vista.
I think most people are simply waiting on the next OS and are trying to give Vista the big miss.
I think that all people really care is if it works well....XP works....so they don’t want to change. Change costs money, time, frustration.....businesses don’t want to spend any of that on Vista in this environment.
A bunch of my customers have moved to terminal type devices....devices that run a single application or maybe a single application and e-mail. Lower capital cost, lower support cost, lower user cost.
In the Windows 95 days, people were telling me that desktop support would be gone in a few years. Instead its even more intensive. Just keeping up the Windows patches is nearly a full time occupation. Combine that with anti-virus and anti-spam and it is a full time occuption. I can see how a small business would fail to see any “improvement” in the situation as it now stands.
I was put off Windows Vista by all the negative talk, but I decided bite the bullet with my latest laptop.
If you get 3 or 4 gigs of memory, which isn’t all that expensive these days, it seems to work just fine. It’s actually faster than my second-oldest laptop which is running XP Pro.
Windows was built so the 4th gig was wasted, but the word is that Vista SP1 will be able to use it. I don’t know; I haven’t had time to download the service pack yet.
I don’t think upgrading an old computer makes much sense. The technology changes so fast, it’s more practical just to buy a new computer with the new OS on it.
What a crock. IF these guys had an inkling, they’d be making that great product to wipe MS off the shelves.
Silver and MacDonald also called on Microsoft to make it easier to move to newer versions of Windows, re-think how it licenses Windows and come up with a truly modular operating system that can grow or shrink as needed.
The two statements above are contradictory, in addition, if they think making peoples present applications useless will sell more OS they are just plain stupid. The reason people are not moving to Vista in large numbers is because on older systems you can't run older apps with Vista, you can't even upgrade to Vista without upgrading your equipment in many cases. So their idea is to take what is making Vista bomb out and to increase the problems. Smart thinking.
The problem with any OS is that once people all have it and once it is stable(such as XP with SP2)then sales drop off and are limited to people who don't already have the system. However, as has been proven, people get tired of spending money upgrading every few years and resist changing to a system that really doesn't improve their operations and, in addition, requires them to buy new hardware and new apps. Common sense dictates that companies are going to go the way that gives them more profit, buying new equipment and new apps every few years doesn't do that.