Article: 10 Things I Warned Microsoft About Windows Vista

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/conte...ows_vista.html

this is an article by Joe Wilcox
and he states:
"I worked as an analyst when Microsoft developed Windows Vista. Execs asked
for my advice, and they got it. Did they listen?"

But of course the vistaboys and frank king of the apes, will just discredit
him too...
it seems like they think that their own experience is better than US pros..
yes me included... with over 25 years of computer experience, I know when an
OS is POS.

let the mud flow freely for vista!
let the truth shine, and THEN lets decide if we should use it or not...
not get it shoved down our throughts in the dark (not mine but the average
user)

here is the text of the article


The imminent real release of Windows Vista Service Pack 1 is reason enough
to broach the question. SP1 is an important milestone for an operating
system that bloggers and other critics consistently ridicule. Oh, yeah, the
channel and enterprises aren't exactly loving Vista either.
These 10 things are in no particular order of importance.
1. Windows Vista has to be a whole lot better than Windows XP. Microsoft had
left XP in the market for a long time. That version of Windows had reached a
certain "good enough" threshold, in part because of the stable, supporting
ecosystem. Vista would have to be a whole lot better to drive upgrades in
established markets. I received assurances that Vista would deliver on the
promise, which was later accentuated in the "Wow" marketing. What happened:
Vista wasn't better enough.
2. Vista will miss the big PC upgrade cycle. A major enterprise PC refresh
cycle started in 2004 and continued through mid-2006. In early 2006, I
warned Microsoft executives that Vista would ship too late. What happened:
The major upgrade cycle wound down, but computer sales remained strong
because of consumer upgrades and a massive shift to portables. So, Vista
missed the big hardware refresh cycle but caught another one. However, in
part because of #1, many businesses opted for Windows XP instead of Vista on
those shiny, new notebooks.
3. Windows Vista Home Basic is too basic. I strongly recommended against
Microsoft's releasing this version at any price. Microsoft executives
insisted that OEMs wanted a low-cost Vista version for cheap PCs. But Basic
offered less than Windows XP Home for about the same price. I called it a
hidden price increase. What happened: There is limited demand for Home
Basic.
4. Call it Windows Basic. Vista Home Basic was so defeatured, I strongly
encouraged Microsoft to remove the Vista name from the product. I warned
that Basic would tarnish the broader Vista brand and that its streamlined
features put it in a lower category. I bet a Microsoft product manager $100
that Windows Basic would become the default nomenclature. What happened:
Other problems affecting every Vista version, such as applications and
drivers incompatibilities, overshadowed Basic's weak feature set. Oh yeah, I
owe somebody at Microsoft 100 bucks. I don't recall who you are, but don't
feel impish about collecting.
5. Vista reminds too much of Windows Me. In late 2006, I had dinner with
some Vista user interface designers. By then, I had used Vista betas for
nearly 10 months. They heard: There are two Microsoft operating systems that
the more I used them the less I liked them-Windows Me and Windows Vista.
While not my intention, the comment hugely insulted the UI designers,
because of how much Windows Me is regarded, even within Microsoft, as a
marketing failure. What happened: Some critics have described Vista as
Windows Me II.
6. One Vista version is enough. I opposed Microsoft's Vista SKU strategy
from the first presentation and, later, after some tweaking. I explained
that Windows isn't toothpaste. Too many versions would confuse customers,
creating an unnecessary impediment to Vista upgrades. How could Vista be
perceived as better enough if the buying experience was more difficult than
XP? I strongly advocated a one-version strategy, but with differentiated OEM
pricing depending on features used by the hardware. I reasoned the approach
would simplify Windows purchasing while encouraging greater PC
differentiation. What happened: The OEM market has largely consolidated
around a single version: Vista Home Premium for consumers. It's all Gateway
sells, for example. Many enterprises are adopting Vista Enterprise, which is
a volume licensing-only option.
7. It has to be multiple SKUs or Windows Experience Index, but not both. WEI
would confuse Vista buyers because the ratings would contradict with some
versions. For example, Vista Ultimate could conceivably ship on a notebook
with WEI of 3.0 (out of a possible 5.9). Customers would ask: If it's so
ultimate, why is the rating so slow? I liked the WEI concept more than the
SKU strategy and recommended choosing only the ratings scheme. What
happened: WEI ratings were low the first year on notebooks, even those with
Vista Ultimate.
8. Vista demands too much. From my earliest product briefings, Microsoft
executives carted around big honking laptops-luggables-to get enough
processing and graphics power to run early Vista builds. I was told Vista
would need less power closer to release. Nope. I got my first Vista test
system in February 2006. WEI: 2.0, on above-average hardware. What happened:
OEMs shipped computers underpowered for Vista, even through holiday 2007.
The operating system demands too much from even modestly older hardware.
9. Windows Vista Capable is a bad idea. Why could Microsoft possibly need
two Vista logo programs? The connotations around Capable and Ready were
either too alike or too confusing. I said that there should be one program
for which everything truly was ready. Unfortunately, Microsoft didn't
consult me on the logo programs, so I gave my advice after the Capable logo
announcement. What happened: A Vista Capable class-action lawsuit revealed
embarrassing Microsoft e-mails about Windows Vista decision-making
processes-or lack of them.
10. Vista security features increase complexity, decrease usability. Oh, I
was a loud critic of UAC (User Account Control) and Internet Explorer
warnings. I argued that Microsoft had made Vista much harder to use than
Windows XP. The experience would be worse for many users. Going back to #1,
Vista had to be a lot better, not perceptually worse. What happened: UAC
warnings hurt usability but caused more troubles; new user rights mechanism
broke many applications.

Wow, There needs to be an uprising of disgruntled vista
users and microsoft needs to fix the damn thing. (vista)
I am a college student and spent good money on updating my pc and also
bought a new laptop. Man, was that a mistake! My machine I built in 2002
and has xp on it and runs so much better! I am so disappointed and am
investigating open source because I am sick of being at the mercy of an OS
that does not function properly.
vista sucks the big one! and I cannot even downgrade because they put vista
home pre. on the machines I bought. What crap! and thousands of dollars
later I have
an Os that I do not like! Microsoft better listen to us or linux will be on
the horizon and looming large!
"On the Bridge!" <On@the,bridge> wrote in message
news:...
> http://www.microsoft-watch.com/conte...ows_vista.html
>
> this is an article by Joe Wilcox
> and he states:
> "I worked as an analyst when Microsoft developed Windows Vista. Execs
> asked for my advice, and they got it. Did they listen?"
>
> But of course the vistaboys and frank king of the apes, will just
> discredit him too...
> it seems like they think that their own experience is better than US
> pros..
> yes me included... with over 25 years of computer experience, I know when
> an OS is POS.
>
> let the mud flow freely for vista!
> let the truth shine, and THEN lets decide if we should use it or not...
> not get it shoved down our throughts in the dark (not mine but the average
> user)
>
> here is the text of the article
>
>
> The imminent real release of Windows Vista Service Pack 1 is reason enough
> to broach the question. SP1 is an important milestone for an operating
> system that bloggers and other critics consistently ridicule. Oh, yeah,
> the channel and enterprises aren't exactly loving Vista either.
> These 10 things are in no particular order of importance.
> 1. Windows Vista has to be a whole lot better than Windows XP. Microsoft
> had left XP in the market for a long time. That version of Windows had
> reached a certain "good enough" threshold, in part because of the stable,
> supporting ecosystem. Vista would have to be a whole lot better to drive
> upgrades in established markets. I received assurances that Vista would
> deliver on the promise, which was later accentuated in the "Wow"
> marketing. What happened: Vista wasn't better enough.
> 2. Vista will miss the big PC upgrade cycle. A major enterprise PC refresh
> cycle started in 2004 and continued through mid-2006. In early 2006, I
> warned Microsoft executives that Vista would ship too late. What happened:
> The major upgrade cycle wound down, but computer sales remained strong
> because of consumer upgrades and a massive shift to portables. So, Vista
> missed the big hardware refresh cycle but caught another one. However, in
> part because of #1, many businesses opted for Windows XP instead of Vista
> on those shiny, new notebooks.
> 3. Windows Vista Home Basic is too basic. I strongly recommended against
> Microsoft's releasing this version at any price. Microsoft executives
> insisted that OEMs wanted a low-cost Vista version for cheap PCs. But
> Basic offered less than Windows XP Home for about the same price. I called
> it a hidden price increase. What happened: There is limited demand for
> Home Basic.
> 4. Call it Windows Basic. Vista Home Basic was so defeatured, I strongly
> encouraged Microsoft to remove the Vista name from the product. I warned
> that Basic would tarnish the broader Vista brand and that its streamlined
> features put it in a lower category. I bet a Microsoft product manager
> $100 that Windows Basic would become the default nomenclature. What
> happened: Other problems affecting every Vista version, such as
> applications and drivers incompatibilities, overshadowed Basic's weak
> feature set. Oh yeah, I owe somebody at Microsoft 100 bucks. I don't
> recall who you are, but don't feel impish about collecting.
> 5. Vista reminds too much of Windows Me. In late 2006, I had dinner with
> some Vista user interface designers. By then, I had used Vista betas for
> nearly 10 months. They heard: There are two Microsoft operating systems
> that the more I used them the less I liked them-Windows Me and Windows
> Vista. While not my intention, the comment hugely insulted the UI
> designers, because of how much Windows Me is regarded, even within
> Microsoft, as a marketing failure. What happened: Some critics have
> described Vista as Windows Me II.
> 6. One Vista version is enough. I opposed Microsoft's Vista SKU strategy
> from the first presentation and, later, after some tweaking. I explained
> that Windows isn't toothpaste. Too many versions would confuse customers,
> creating an unnecessary impediment to Vista upgrades. How could Vista be
> perceived as better enough if the buying experience was more difficult
> than XP? I strongly advocated a one-version strategy, but with
> differentiated OEM pricing depending on features used by the hardware. I
> reasoned the approach would simplify Windows purchasing while encouraging
> greater PC differentiation. What happened: The OEM market has largely
> consolidated around a single version: Vista Home Premium for consumers.
> It's all Gateway sells, for example. Many enterprises are adopting Vista
> Enterprise, which is a volume licensing-only option.
> 7. It has to be multiple SKUs or Windows Experience Index, but not both.
> WEI would confuse Vista buyers because the ratings would contradict with
> some versions. For example, Vista Ultimate could conceivably ship on a
> notebook with WEI of 3.0 (out of a possible 5.9). Customers would ask: If
> it's so ultimate, why is the rating so slow? I liked the WEI concept more
> than the SKU strategy and recommended choosing only the ratings scheme.
> What happened: WEI ratings were low the first year on notebooks, even
> those with Vista Ultimate.
> 8. Vista demands too much. From my earliest product briefings, Microsoft
> executives carted around big honking laptops-luggables-to get enough
> processing and graphics power to run early Vista builds. I was told Vista
> would need less power closer to release. Nope. I got my first Vista test
> system in February 2006. WEI: 2.0, on above-average hardware. What
> happened: OEMs shipped computers underpowered for Vista, even through
> holiday 2007. The operating system demands too much from even modestly
> older hardware.
> 9. Windows Vista Capable is a bad idea. Why could Microsoft possibly need
> two Vista logo programs? The connotations around Capable and Ready were
> either too alike or too confusing. I said that there should be one program
> for which everything truly was ready. Unfortunately, Microsoft didn't
> consult me on the logo programs, so I gave my advice after the Capable
> logo announcement. What happened: A Vista Capable class-action lawsuit
> revealed embarrassing Microsoft e-mails about Windows Vista
> decision-making processes-or lack of them.
> 10. Vista security features increase complexity, decrease usability. Oh, I
> was a loud critic of UAC (User Account Control) and Internet Explorer
> warnings. I argued that Microsoft had made Vista much harder to use than
> Windows XP. The experience would be worse for many users. Going back to
> #1, Vista had to be a lot better, not perceptually worse. What happened:
> UAC warnings hurt usability but caused more troubles; new user rights
> mechanism broke many applications.
>

"Administrator" <> wrote in message
news:3B47F841-1580-425A-8868-...
> Wow, There needs to be an uprising of disgruntled vista
> users and microsoft needs to fix the damn thing. (vista)
> I am a college student and spent good money on updating my pc and also
> bought a new laptop. Man, was that a mistake! My machine I built in 2002
> and has xp on it and runs so much better!

So you're proud that your 6 year old machine runs XP! LOL! How well did
your 1996 computer run XP in 2002? I'm guessing it ran so well that you
built the new one in 2002, right?

Kind of dumb to try to run a new os on a 6 year old machine. Enjoy Linux.

"Administrator" <> wrote in message
news:3B47F841-1580-425A-8868-...
> Wow, There needs to be an uprising of disgruntled vista
> users and microsoft needs to fix the damn thing. (vista)
> I am a college student and spent good money on updating my pc and also
> bought a new laptop. Man, was that a mistake! My machine I built in 2002
> and has xp on it and runs so much better! I am so disappointed and am
> investigating open source because I am sick of being at the mercy of an OS
> that does not function properly.
> vista sucks the big one! and I cannot even downgrade because they put
> vista home pre. on the machines I bought. What crap! and thousands of
> dollars later I have
> an Os that I do not like! Microsoft better listen to us or linux will be
> on the horizon and looming large!
> "On the Bridge!" <On@the,bridge> wrote in message
> news:...
>> http://www.microsoft-watch.com/conte...ows_vista.html
>>
>> this is an article by Joe Wilcox
>> and he states:
>> "I worked as an analyst when Microsoft developed Windows Vista. Execs
>> asked for my advice, and they got it. Did they listen?"
>>
>> But of course the vistaboys and frank king of the apes, will just
>> discredit him too...
>> it seems like they think that their own experience is better than US
>> pros..
>> yes me included... with over 25 years of computer experience, I know when
>> an OS is POS.
>>
>> let the mud flow freely for vista!
>> let the truth shine, and THEN lets decide if we should use it or not...
>> not get it shoved down our throughts in the dark (not mine but the
>> average user)
>>
>> here is the text of the article
>>
>>
>> The imminent real release of Windows Vista Service Pack 1 is reason
>> enough to broach the question. SP1 is an important milestone for an
>> operating system that bloggers and other critics consistently ridicule.
>> Oh, yeah, the channel and enterprises aren't exactly loving Vista either.
>> These 10 things are in no particular order of importance.
>> 1. Windows Vista has to be a whole lot better than Windows XP. Microsoft
>> had left XP in the market for a long time. That version of Windows had
>> reached a certain "good enough" threshold, in part because of the stable,
>> supporting ecosystem. Vista would have to be a whole lot better to drive
>> upgrades in established markets. I received assurances that Vista would
>> deliver on the promise, which was later accentuated in the "Wow"
>> marketing. What happened: Vista wasn't better enough.
>> 2. Vista will miss the big PC upgrade cycle. A major enterprise PC
>> refresh cycle started in 2004 and continued through mid-2006. In early
>> 2006, I warned Microsoft executives that Vista would ship too late. What
>> happened: The major upgrade cycle wound down, but computer sales remained
>> strong because of consumer upgrades and a massive shift to portables. So,
>> Vista missed the big hardware refresh cycle but caught another one.
>> However, in part because of #1, many businesses opted for Windows XP
>> instead of Vista on those shiny, new notebooks.
>> 3. Windows Vista Home Basic is too basic. I strongly recommended against
>> Microsoft's releasing this version at any price. Microsoft executives
>> insisted that OEMs wanted a low-cost Vista version for cheap PCs. But
>> Basic offered less than Windows XP Home for about the same price. I
>> called it a hidden price increase. What happened: There is limited demand
>> for Home Basic.
>> 4. Call it Windows Basic. Vista Home Basic was so defeatured, I strongly
>> encouraged Microsoft to remove the Vista name from the product. I warned
>> that Basic would tarnish the broader Vista brand and that its streamlined
>> features put it in a lower category. I bet a Microsoft product manager
>> $100 that Windows Basic would become the default nomenclature. What
>> happened: Other problems affecting every Vista version, such as
>> applications and drivers incompatibilities, overshadowed Basic's weak
>> feature set. Oh yeah, I owe somebody at Microsoft 100 bucks. I don't
>> recall who you are, but don't feel impish about collecting.
>> 5. Vista reminds too much of Windows Me. In late 2006, I had dinner with
>> some Vista user interface designers. By then, I had used Vista betas for
>> nearly 10 months. They heard: There are two Microsoft operating systems
>> that the more I used them the less I liked them-Windows Me and Windows
>> Vista. While not my intention, the comment hugely insulted the UI
>> designers, because of how much Windows Me is regarded, even within
>> Microsoft, as a marketing failure. What happened: Some critics have
>> described Vista as Windows Me II.
>> 6. One Vista version is enough. I opposed Microsoft's Vista SKU strategy
>> from the first presentation and, later, after some tweaking. I explained
>> that Windows isn't toothpaste. Too many versions would confuse customers,
>> creating an unnecessary impediment to Vista upgrades. How could Vista be
>> perceived as better enough if the buying experience was more difficult
>> than XP? I strongly advocated a one-version strategy, but with
>> differentiated OEM pricing depending on features used by the hardware. I
>> reasoned the approach would simplify Windows purchasing while encouraging
>> greater PC differentiation. What happened: The OEM market has largely
>> consolidated around a single version: Vista Home Premium for consumers.
>> It's all Gateway sells, for example. Many enterprises are adopting Vista
>> Enterprise, which is a volume licensing-only option.
>> 7. It has to be multiple SKUs or Windows Experience Index, but not both.
>> WEI would confuse Vista buyers because the ratings would contradict with
>> some versions. For example, Vista Ultimate could conceivably ship on a
>> notebook with WEI of 3.0 (out of a possible 5.9). Customers would ask: If
>> it's so ultimate, why is the rating so slow? I liked the WEI concept more
>> than the SKU strategy and recommended choosing only the ratings scheme.
>> What happened: WEI ratings were low the first year on notebooks, even
>> those with Vista Ultimate.
>> 8. Vista demands too much. From my earliest product briefings, Microsoft
>> executives carted around big honking laptops-luggables-to get enough
>> processing and graphics power to run early Vista builds. I was told Vista
>> would need less power closer to release. Nope. I got my first Vista test
>> system in February 2006. WEI: 2.0, on above-average hardware. What
>> happened: OEMs shipped computers underpowered for Vista, even through
>> holiday 2007. The operating system demands too much from even modestly
>> older hardware.
>> 9. Windows Vista Capable is a bad idea. Why could Microsoft possibly need
>> two Vista logo programs? The connotations around Capable and Ready were
>> either too alike or too confusing. I said that there should be one
>> program for which everything truly was ready. Unfortunately, Microsoft
>> didn't consult me on the logo programs, so I gave my advice after the
>> Capable logo announcement. What happened: A Vista Capable class-action
>> lawsuit revealed embarrassing Microsoft e-mails about Windows Vista
>> decision-making processes-or lack of them.
>> 10. Vista security features increase complexity, decrease usability. Oh,
>> I was a loud critic of UAC (User Account Control) and Internet Explorer
>> warnings. I argued that Microsoft had made Vista much harder to use than
>> Windows XP. The experience would be worse for many users. Going back to
>> #1, Vista had to be a lot better, not perceptually worse. What happened:
>> UAC warnings hurt usability but caused more troubles; new user rights
>> mechanism broke many applications.
>>
>

*throats!!!

gasp

"On the Bridge!" <On@the,bridge> wrote in message
news:...
> http://www.microsoft-watch.com/conte...ows_vista.html
>
> this is an article by Joe Wilcox
> and he states:
> "I worked as an analyst when Microsoft developed Windows Vista. Execs
> asked for my advice, and they got it. Did they listen?"
>
> But of course the vistaboys and frank king of the apes, will just
> discredit him too...
> it seems like they think that their own experience is better than US
> pros..
> yes me included... with over 25 years of computer experience, I know when
> an OS is POS.
>
> let the mud flow freely for vista!
> let the truth shine, and THEN lets decide if we should use it or not...
> not get it shoved down our throughts in the dark (not mine but the average
> user)
>
> here is the text of the article
>
>
> The imminent real release of Windows Vista Service Pack 1 is reason enough
> to broach the question. SP1 is an important milestone for an operating
> system that bloggers and other critics consistently ridicule. Oh, yeah,
> the channel and enterprises aren't exactly loving Vista either.
> These 10 things are in no particular order of importance.
> 1. Windows Vista has to be a whole lot better than Windows XP. Microsoft
> had left XP in the market for a long time. That version of Windows had
> reached a certain "good enough" threshold, in part because of the stable,
> supporting ecosystem. Vista would have to be a whole lot better to drive
> upgrades in established markets. I received assurances that Vista would
> deliver on the promise, which was later accentuated in the "Wow"
> marketing. What happened: Vista wasn't better enough.
> 2. Vista will miss the big PC upgrade cycle. A major enterprise PC refresh
> cycle started in 2004 and continued through mid-2006. In early 2006, I
> warned Microsoft executives that Vista would ship too late. What happened:
> The major upgrade cycle wound down, but computer sales remained strong
> because of consumer upgrades and a massive shift to portables. So, Vista
> missed the big hardware refresh cycle but caught another one. However, in
> part because of #1, many businesses opted for Windows XP instead of Vista
> on those shiny, new notebooks.
> 3. Windows Vista Home Basic is too basic. I strongly recommended against
> Microsoft's releasing this version at any price. Microsoft executives
> insisted that OEMs wanted a low-cost Vista version for cheap PCs. But
> Basic offered less than Windows XP Home for about the same price. I called
> it a hidden price increase. What happened: There is limited demand for
> Home Basic.
> 4. Call it Windows Basic. Vista Home Basic was so defeatured, I strongly
> encouraged Microsoft to remove the Vista name from the product. I warned
> that Basic would tarnish the broader Vista brand and that its streamlined
> features put it in a lower category. I bet a Microsoft product manager
> $100 that Windows Basic would become the default nomenclature. What
> happened: Other problems affecting every Vista version, such as
> applications and drivers incompatibilities, overshadowed Basic's weak
> feature set. Oh yeah, I owe somebody at Microsoft 100 bucks. I don't
> recall who you are, but don't feel impish about collecting.
> 5. Vista reminds too much of Windows Me. In late 2006, I had dinner with
> some Vista user interface designers. By then, I had used Vista betas for
> nearly 10 months. They heard: There are two Microsoft operating systems
> that the more I used them the less I liked them-Windows Me and Windows
> Vista. While not my intention, the comment hugely insulted the UI
> designers, because of how much Windows Me is regarded, even within
> Microsoft, as a marketing failure. What happened: Some critics have
> described Vista as Windows Me II.
> 6. One Vista version is enough. I opposed Microsoft's Vista SKU strategy
> from the first presentation and, later, after some tweaking. I explained
> that Windows isn't toothpaste. Too many versions would confuse customers,
> creating an unnecessary impediment to Vista upgrades. How could Vista be
> perceived as better enough if the buying experience was more difficult
> than XP? I strongly advocated a one-version strategy, but with
> differentiated OEM pricing depending on features used by the hardware. I
> reasoned the approach would simplify Windows purchasing while encouraging
> greater PC differentiation. What happened: The OEM market has largely
> consolidated around a single version: Vista Home Premium for consumers.
> It's all Gateway sells, for example. Many enterprises are adopting Vista
> Enterprise, which is a volume licensing-only option.
> 7. It has to be multiple SKUs or Windows Experience Index, but not both.
> WEI would confuse Vista buyers because the ratings would contradict with
> some versions. For example, Vista Ultimate could conceivably ship on a
> notebook with WEI of 3.0 (out of a possible 5.9). Customers would ask: If
> it's so ultimate, why is the rating so slow? I liked the WEI concept more
> than the SKU strategy and recommended choosing only the ratings scheme.
> What happened: WEI ratings were low the first year on notebooks, even
> those with Vista Ultimate.
> 8. Vista demands too much. From my earliest product briefings, Microsoft
> executives carted around big honking laptops-luggables-to get enough
> processing and graphics power to run early Vista builds. I was told Vista
> would need less power closer to release. Nope. I got my first Vista test
> system in February 2006. WEI: 2.0, on above-average hardware. What
> happened: OEMs shipped computers underpowered for Vista, even through
> holiday 2007. The operating system demands too much from even modestly
> older hardware.
> 9. Windows Vista Capable is a bad idea. Why could Microsoft possibly need
> two Vista logo programs? The connotations around Capable and Ready were
> either too alike or too confusing. I said that there should be one program
> for which everything truly was ready. Unfortunately, Microsoft didn't
> consult me on the logo programs, so I gave my advice after the Capable
> logo announcement. What happened: A Vista Capable class-action lawsuit
> revealed embarrassing Microsoft e-mails about Windows Vista
> decision-making processes-or lack of them.
> 10. Vista security features increase complexity, decrease usability. Oh, I
> was a loud critic of UAC (User Account Control) and Internet Explorer
> warnings. I argued that Microsoft had made Vista much harder to use than
> Windows XP. The experience would be worse for many users. Going back to
> #1, Vista had to be a lot better, not perceptually worse. What happened:
> UAC warnings hurt usability but caused more troubles; new user rights
> mechanism broke many applications.
>

Now there is a new wave of more advanced technology.
instead of trying to get results by sheer brute force (faster cpu more cores
more ram more hdd space)
new computers that are smarter with less processing power are coming out,
some work with 2 watts.

and new OS's that wont need all that cpu power are coming out.
All part of the infinite cloud.

Your idea of advancement is so old, it must die.... Vista will die.. and I
will be glad it will.

I guess you wont mind me calling you Mr.Dino...

"Bob Campbell" <> wrote in message
news:...
> "Administrator" <> wrote in message
> news:3B47F841-1580-425A-8868-...
>> Wow, There needs to be an uprising of disgruntled vista
>> users and microsoft needs to fix the damn thing. (vista)
>> I am a college student and spent good money on updating my pc and also
>> bought a new laptop. Man, was that a mistake! My machine I built in
>> 2002 and has xp on it and runs so much better!
>
> So you're proud that your 6 year old machine runs XP! LOL! How well
> did your 1996 computer run XP in 2002? I'm guessing it ran so well that
> you built the new one in 2002, right?
>
>
>
>

"On the Bridge!" wrote in message news:...
> http://www.microsoft-watch.com/conte...ows_vista.html
>
<snip>
>
> here is the text of the article
>
>
> The imminent real release of Windows Vista Service Pack 1 is reason enough
> to broach the question. SP1 is an important milestone for an operating
> system that bloggers and other critics consistently ridicule. Oh, yeah,
> the channel and enterprises aren't exactly loving Vista either.
> These 10 things are in no particular order of importance.
> 1. Windows Vista has to be a whole lot better than Windows XP. Microsoft
> had left XP in the market for a long time. That version of Windows had
> reached a certain "good enough" threshold, in part because of the stable,
> supporting ecosystem. Vista would have to be a whole lot better to drive
> upgrades in established markets. I received assurances that Vista would
> deliver on the promise, which was later accentuated in the "Wow"
> marketing. What happened: Vista wasn't better enough.

So, Vista is better than XP, right? LOL

the mere fact that people are even debating if vista is better than xp shows
that vista
is not good enough

5 years is a long time to deliver something that should have been
magnificent!



<> wrote in message
news:%...
> "On the Bridge!" wrote in message news:...
>> http://www.microsoft-watch.com/conte...ows_vista.html
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> here is the text of the article
>>
>>
>> The imminent real release of Windows Vista Service Pack 1 is reason
>> enough to broach the question. SP1 is an important milestone for an
>> operating system that bloggers and other critics consistently ridicule.
>> Oh, yeah, the channel and enterprises aren't exactly loving Vista either.
>> These 10 things are in no particular order of importance.
>> 1. Windows Vista has to be a whole lot better than Windows XP. Microsoft
>> had left XP in the market for a long time. That version of Windows had
>> reached a certain "good enough" threshold, in part because of the stable,
>> supporting ecosystem. Vista would have to be a whole lot better to drive
>> upgrades in established markets. I received assurances that Vista would
>> deliver on the promise, which was later accentuated in the "Wow"
>> marketing. What happened: Vista wasn't better enough.
>
> So, Vista is better than XP, right? LOL
>

On the Bridge! wrote:


....let me give you a piece of advice capin' crunch.
Next time do two things:

1) just post the URL, ok?
2) read the fukkin article!

Then we can discuss the likes and dislikes about the FUNCTIONAL parts of
Vista.
The marketing of Vista is history...it is what it is. Basic,Premium,
Business, Ultimate...exists...nothing you or joe can say will change
that fact. Playing Monday morning quarterback about marketing is merely
flapping your jaws.
Got it?
Oh and if you have so GD much experience with computers please tell us
why you can't seem to get one little fukkin install of Vista to run
properly. huh?
Whereas I have 17 installs of Vista running properly!
Does that make me smarter than you?...LOL!
Well...?
Frank

>1) just post the URL, ok?

you dont read urls franky poo, remember?

>why you can't seem to get one little fukkin >install of Vista to run
>properly. huh?

this is some lie that is stuck in your mind and you keep repeating it again
and again so many times you might actually believe it in the end.

I have installed vista many times for me and clients
all of them are working as best as vista could ever work...

Your real problem is that you cannot accept people who know vista better
than you actually dont like it.

> Does that make me smarter than you?...LOL!

You keep dreaming...



"Frank" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On the Bridge! wrote:
>
>
> ...let me give you a piece of advice capin' crunch.
> Next time do two things:
>
> 1) just post the URL, ok?
> 2) read the fukkin article!
>
> Then we can discuss the likes and dislikes about the FUNCTIONAL parts of
> Vista.
> The marketing of Vista is history...it is what it is. Basic,Premium,
> Business, Ultimate...exists...nothing you or joe can say will change that
> fact. Playing Monday morning quarterback about marketing is merely
> flapping your jaws.
> Got it?
> Oh and if you have so GD much experience with computers please tell us why
> you can't seem to get one little fukkin install of Vista to run properly.
> huh?
> Whereas I have 17 installs of Vista running properly!
> Does that make me smarter than you?...LOL!
> Well...?
> Frank