The Vista Death Watch

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2209837,00.asp

by John C. Dvorak

Microsoft has extended the life of Windows XP because Vista has simply
not shown any life in the market. We have to begin to ask ourselves if
we are really looking at Windows Me/2007, destined to be a disdained
flop. By all estimates the number of Vista installations hovers around
the number of Macs in use.

How did this happen? And what's going to happen next? Does Microsoft
have a Plan B? A number of possibilities come to mind, and these
things must be considered by the company itself.

So what went wrong with Vista in the first place? Let's start off with
the elephant in the room. The product was overpriced from the outset.
Why was it so expensive? What was special about it? All the cool and
promised features of the original vision of Longhorn were gutted
simply because it was beyond Microsoft's capability to implement those
features.

This failure to deliver what was promised--even after several delays in
the product's release, by the way--did nothing to excite anyone. It
made the company look bad. It directly resulted in a no-confidence
vote that was manifested in a lackluster reception and low sales.
Microsoft should have scrapped the project two years ago and instead
patched XP until it could deliver something hot.

To make things worse, there are too many versions. Exactly what is the
point of that? Don't we all just want Vista Ultimate? The other
versions seem like a way to maybe save money for some users who cannot
afford to get the real thing. You can be certain this version glut
results only in complaints about what each variation is missing.

Microsoft's initial approach to marketing this turkey was obviously
going to be to put it on just new machines, which would eventually
saturate the market, but the PC manufacturers squawked and demanded
the continuation of XP sales. Though there is some chatter about how
Linux could use this lull in the Microsoft juggernaut to make some
real headway onto the desktop, this is unlikely to happen. But
Microsoft, with all its paranoid thinking, might have believed it to
be possible. So XP is still with us and will be until deep into next
year.

I should mention here that much of this mess, I strongly believe, is
due to Microsoft's recent obsession with Google and online search. Now
Microsoft wants to be in the advertising business because Google is in
the advertising business. Meanwhile, it can't do its real job.


So what can Microsoft do to improve things with Vista? Here are three
suggestions:

1. It can give up on the stupid variations and lower the price on the
one good Vista, Vista Ultimate. I'd say $99 would be a price everyone
can live with.

2. Microsoft can scuttle the entire product. Why not? Work on a whole
new OS starting today with one team and work on SP3 for XP with
another team to keep users on Windows.

3. Roll out Vista 2.0. Figure out some way to add some nifty features,
perhaps stolen from the next version of the Mac OS. Bring in some
outside designers if you have to. Oh, and lower the price on this one,
too.

I remember the old Bill Gates speeches of the mid-1980s when
Microsoft, as he told it, "sold code." Selling code was what he did,
and selling code is a terrific business once you are established. It's
even better if you can monopolize a market with your code. It's easy
money compared with most businesses. Halo 3 is code. It sold $175
million worth of code on its first day of release. Once code is fixed
in place and burned onto a CD-ROM or DVD, it has a manufacturing cost
of a buck or two and sells for anywhere from $30 to $1,000 or more.

But Microsoft sees a new kid on the block, Google. Google is a service
combined with an advertising sales engine. It looks profitable, too.
But is it as profitable as selling code? Apparently Microsoft thinks
it might be. Besides, there is no $2 manufacturing cost.

Until now, Microsoft could sell code better than anyone, but it seems
the company would rather sell services: software as a service, ads,
search engine results--you name it. This is like the local storefront
that opens as a knife-sharpening business and is soon selling junk
jewelry, moose heads, toaster repair, and cheap chocolate. In the
meantime, the knife-sharpening business goes by the wayside. This is
what has happened to Microsoft, and Vista is the result.

I'm certainly not going to be a happy camper if I have to switch to a
Mac or Linux system full-time, yet that is exactly where this
scatterbrained company seems to be sending me.

<yawn>

AirRaid wrote:
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2209837,00.asp
>
> by John C. Dvorak
>
> Microsoft has extended the life of Windows XP because Vista has simply
> not shown any life in the market. We have to begin to ask ourselves if
> we are really looking at Windows Me/2007, destined to be a disdained
> flop. By all estimates the number of Vista installations hovers around
> the number of Macs in use....

John C. Dvorak has been wrong so many times he has become the most
irrelevant technology journalist of the 20th and 21st century. When Windows
3.0 was released, he said people would check it out once then go back to
DOS.
--
Andre
Blog: http://adacosta.spaces.live.com
My Vista Quickstart Guide:
http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog...3DB!9709.entry
"AirRaid" <> wrote in message
news:4399e307-3091-4217-a503-...
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2209837,00.asp
>
> by John C. Dvorak
>
> Microsoft has extended the life of Windows XP because Vista has simply
> not shown any life in the market. We have to begin to ask ourselves if
> we are really looking at Windows Me/2007, destined to be a disdained
> flop. By all estimates the number of Vista installations hovers around
> the number of Macs in use.
>
> How did this happen? And what's going to happen next? Does Microsoft
> have a Plan B? A number of possibilities come to mind, and these
> things must be considered by the company itself.
>
> So what went wrong with Vista in the first place? Let's start off with
> the elephant in the room. The product was overpriced from the outset.
> Why was it so expensive? What was special about it? All the cool and
> promised features of the original vision of Longhorn were gutted
> simply because it was beyond Microsoft's capability to implement those
> features.
>
> This failure to deliver what was promised--even after several delays in
> the product's release, by the way--did nothing to excite anyone. It
> made the company look bad. It directly resulted in a no-confidence
> vote that was manifested in a lackluster reception and low sales.
> Microsoft should have scrapped the project two years ago and instead
> patched XP until it could deliver something hot.
>
> To make things worse, there are too many versions. Exactly what is the
> point of that? Don't we all just want Vista Ultimate? The other
> versions seem like a way to maybe save money for some users who cannot
> afford to get the real thing. You can be certain this version glut
> results only in complaints about what each variation is missing.
>
> Microsoft's initial approach to marketing this turkey was obviously
> going to be to put it on just new machines, which would eventually
> saturate the market, but the PC manufacturers squawked and demanded
> the continuation of XP sales. Though there is some chatter about how
> Linux could use this lull in the Microsoft juggernaut to make some
> real headway onto the desktop, this is unlikely to happen. But
> Microsoft, with all its paranoid thinking, might have believed it to
> be possible. So XP is still with us and will be until deep into next
> year.
>
> I should mention here that much of this mess, I strongly believe, is
> due to Microsoft's recent obsession with Google and online search. Now
> Microsoft wants to be in the advertising business because Google is in
> the advertising business. Meanwhile, it can't do its real job.
>
>
> So what can Microsoft do to improve things with Vista? Here are three
> suggestions:
>
> 1. It can give up on the stupid variations and lower the price on the
> one good Vista, Vista Ultimate. I'd say $99 would be a price everyone
> can live with.
>
> 2. Microsoft can scuttle the entire product. Why not? Work on a whole
> new OS starting today with one team and work on SP3 for XP with
> another team to keep users on Windows.
>
> 3. Roll out Vista 2.0. Figure out some way to add some nifty features,
> perhaps stolen from the next version of the Mac OS. Bring in some
> outside designers if you have to. Oh, and lower the price on this one,
> too.
>
> I remember the old Bill Gates speeches of the mid-1980s when
> Microsoft, as he told it, "sold code." Selling code was what he did,
> and selling code is a terrific business once you are established. It's
> even better if you can monopolize a market with your code. It's easy
> money compared with most businesses. Halo 3 is code. It sold $175
> million worth of code on its first day of release. Once code is fixed
> in place and burned onto a CD-ROM or DVD, it has a manufacturing cost
> of a buck or two and sells for anywhere from $30 to $1,000 or more.
>
> But Microsoft sees a new kid on the block, Google. Google is a service
> combined with an advertising sales engine. It looks profitable, too.
> But is it as profitable as selling code? Apparently Microsoft thinks
> it might be. Besides, there is no $2 manufacturing cost.
>
> Until now, Microsoft could sell code better than anyone, but it seems
> the company would rather sell services: software as a service, ads,
> search engine results--you name it. This is like the local storefront
> that opens as a knife-sharpening business and is soon selling junk
> jewelry, moose heads, toaster repair, and cheap chocolate. In the
> meantime, the knife-sharpening business goes by the wayside. This is
> what has happened to Microsoft, and Vista is the result.
>
> I'm certainly not going to be a happy camper if I have to switch to a
> Mac or Linux system full-time, yet that is exactly where this
> scatterbrained company seems to be sending me.

Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin] wrote:
> John C. Dvorak has been wrong so many times he has become the most
> irrelevant technology journalist of the 20th and 21st century. When Windows
> 3.0 was released, he said people would check it out once then go back to
> DOS.

Yeah.
Hard to believe he still has a column.
Frank

DOUBLE <yawn> :>)

"PA Bear" <> wrote in message
news:eSJV0D$...
> <yawn>
>
> AirRaid wrote:
>> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2209837,00.asp
>>
>> by John C. Dvorak
>>
>> Microsoft has extended the life of Windows XP because Vista has simply
>> not shown any life in the market. We have to begin to ask ourselves if
>> we are really looking at Windows Me/2007, destined to be a disdained
>> flop. By all estimates the number of Vista installations hovers around
>> the number of Macs in use....

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:54:21 -0800, Frank <> wrote:

>Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin] wrote:
>> John C. Dvorak has been wrong so many times he has become the most
>> irrelevant technology journalist of the 20th and 21st century. When Windows
>> 3.0 was released, he said people would check it out once then go back to
>> DOS.
>
>Yeah.
>Hard to believe he still has a column.

Hard to believe anybody could be as stupid as you, but you are.

It is all about MONEY

Remember when anti-viruses used to be ANTI-VIRUSES.

Now they are anti-spyware,, anti- malware, and a firewall all rolled into one!

They see someone else making a $ out of it, and GREED set in!

"AirRaid" wrote:

> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2209837,00.asp
>
> by John C. Dvorak
>
> Microsoft has extended the life of Windows XP because Vista has simply
> not shown any life in the market. We have to begin to ask ourselves if
> we are really looking at Windows Me/2007, destined to be a disdained
> flop. By all estimates the number of Vista installations hovers around
> the number of Macs in use.
>
> How did this happen? And what's going to happen next? Does Microsoft
> have a Plan B? A number of possibilities come to mind, and these
> things must be considered by the company itself.
>
> So what went wrong with Vista in the first place? Let's start off with
> the elephant in the room. The product was overpriced from the outset.
> Why was it so expensive? What was special about it? All the cool and
> promised features of the original vision of Longhorn were gutted
> simply because it was beyond Microsoft's capability to implement those
> features.
>
> This failure to deliver what was promised--even after several delays in
> the product's release, by the way--did nothing to excite anyone. It
> made the company look bad. It directly resulted in a no-confidence
> vote that was manifested in a lackluster reception and low sales.
> Microsoft should have scrapped the project two years ago and instead
> patched XP until it could deliver something hot.
>
> To make things worse, there are too many versions. Exactly what is the
> point of that? Don't we all just want Vista Ultimate? The other
> versions seem like a way to maybe save money for some users who cannot
> afford to get the real thing. You can be certain this version glut
> results only in complaints about what each variation is missing.
>
> Microsoft's initial approach to marketing this turkey was obviously
> going to be to put it on just new machines, which would eventually
> saturate the market, but the PC manufacturers squawked and demanded
> the continuation of XP sales. Though there is some chatter about how
> Linux could use this lull in the Microsoft juggernaut to make some
> real headway onto the desktop, this is unlikely to happen. But
> Microsoft, with all its paranoid thinking, might have believed it to
> be possible. So XP is still with us and will be until deep into next
> year.
>
> I should mention here that much of this mess, I strongly believe, is
> due to Microsoft's recent obsession with Google and online search. Now
> Microsoft wants to be in the advertising business because Google is in
> the advertising business. Meanwhile, it can't do its real job.
>
>
> So what can Microsoft do to improve things with Vista? Here are three
> suggestions:
>
> 1. It can give up on the stupid variations and lower the price on the
> one good Vista, Vista Ultimate. I'd say $99 would be a price everyone
> can live with.
>
> 2. Microsoft can scuttle the entire product. Why not? Work on a whole
> new OS starting today with one team and work on SP3 for XP with
> another team to keep users on Windows.
>
> 3. Roll out Vista 2.0. Figure out some way to add some nifty features,
> perhaps stolen from the next version of the Mac OS. Bring in some
> outside designers if you have to. Oh, and lower the price on this one,
> too.
>
> I remember the old Bill Gates speeches of the mid-1980s when
> Microsoft, as he told it, "sold code." Selling code was what he did,
> and selling code is a terrific business once you are established. It's
> even better if you can monopolize a market with your code. It's easy
> money compared with most businesses. Halo 3 is code. It sold $175
> million worth of code on its first day of release. Once code is fixed
> in place and burned onto a CD-ROM or DVD, it has a manufacturing cost
> of a buck or two and sells for anywhere from $30 to $1,000 or more.
>
> But Microsoft sees a new kid on the block, Google. Google is a service
> combined with an advertising sales engine. It looks profitable, too.
> But is it as profitable as selling code? Apparently Microsoft thinks
> it might be. Besides, there is no $2 manufacturing cost.
>
> Until now, Microsoft could sell code better than anyone, but it seems
> the company would rather sell services: software as a service, ads,
> search engine results--you name it. This is like the local storefront
> that opens as a knife-sharpening business and is soon selling junk
> jewelry, moose heads, toaster repair, and cheap chocolate. In the
> meantime, the knife-sharpening business goes by the wayside. This is
> what has happened to Microsoft, and Vista is the result.
>
> I'm certainly not going to be a happy camper if I have to switch to a
> Mac or Linux system full-time, yet that is exactly where this
> scatterbrained company seems to be sending me.
>

ok im worried i installed ultimate x64

is 32 bit vista this unstable....?


--
Violent Ken

The article seems to be full of misleading conclusions and bad
assumptions.

"Microsoft has extended the life of Windows XP because"
This is not new and has been done before with other operating
systems.
while it is possible, there is little to support the authors
assumption.

"there are too many versions"
4 - XP Home, XP Pro, XP Tablet PC and XP Media Center
There are also 4 with windows Vista, Home Basic, Home Premium,
Business and Ultimate.
There are others in Windows XP and Windows Vista, but they are not
applicable to most users.

1. While a lower price is good for purchasers, it does little for
stockholders, and Microsoft is bound by law to do what it can to make
money for the stockholders.
Also obviously many "can live with" paying far more than $99 since
they already do.
Exactly how do you come up with $99?
Other than it is lower than the lowest cost for Windows now.
Those that want more features can get them but they also expect to pay
more.
Those the want the option to pay less for less features are also given
that choice.
There have been nearly countless pricing suggestions give by others
and most such as this ignore the fact it it the product owner who sets
the price taking many factors into account, such as cost, expected
market, profit for stockholders etc.
Your suggestion removes the choice many now have.

2. "Microsoft can scuttle the entire product"
Rediculous, the product is already out there and Windows Vista
performs well for many.
However if you feel that way there is absolutely you need to purchase
Windows Vista.
Simply stay with what you have or purchase a computer with the
operating system of your own choice.
But to suggest many now using and preferring Windows Vista lose that
choice simply because you do not like it is unacceptable.

3. "perhaps stolen from the next version of the Mac OS"
Perhaps this give a hint of your real agenda.
"Oh, and lower the price on this one"
The price of Windows has been about the same since Windows 95.
Adding for inflation, each version of Windows vista is cheaper than
the predecessors.

Regardless of what we want, simple capitalism is at work.
If the price is not to high, people will pay and there is no reason
for a seller to lower a price when people will pay.
I would love for all manufacturers, not just Microsoft, cut their
prices in half.
But it will probably not happen.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"AirRaid" <> wrote in message
news:4399e307-3091-4217-a503-...
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2209837,00.asp
>
> by John C. Dvorak
>
> Microsoft has extended the life of Windows XP because Vista has
> simply
> not shown any life in the market. We have to begin to ask ourselves
> if
> we are really looking at Windows Me/2007, destined to be a disdained
> flop. By all estimates the number of Vista installations hovers
> around
> the number of Macs in use.
>
> How did this happen? And what's going to happen next? Does Microsoft
> have a Plan B? A number of possibilities come to mind, and these
> things must be considered by the company itself.
>
> So what went wrong with Vista in the first place? Let's start off
> with
> the elephant in the room. The product was overpriced from the
> outset.
> Why was it so expensive? What was special about it? All the cool and
> promised features of the original vision of Longhorn were gutted
> simply because it was beyond Microsoft's capability to implement
> those
> features.
>
> This failure to deliver what was promised--even after several delays
> in
> the product's release, by the way--did nothing to excite anyone. It
> made the company look bad. It directly resulted in a no-confidence
> vote that was manifested in a lackluster reception and low sales.
> Microsoft should have scrapped the project two years ago and instead
> patched XP until it could deliver something hot.
>
> To make things worse, there are too many versions. Exactly what is
> the
> point of that? Don't we all just want Vista Ultimate? The other
> versions seem like a way to maybe save money for some users who
> cannot
> afford to get the real thing. You can be certain this version glut
> results only in complaints about what each variation is missing.
>
> Microsoft's initial approach to marketing this turkey was obviously
> going to be to put it on just new machines, which would eventually
> saturate the market, but the PC manufacturers squawked and demanded
> the continuation of XP sales. Though there is some chatter about how
> Linux could use this lull in the Microsoft juggernaut to make some
> real headway onto the desktop, this is unlikely to happen. But
> Microsoft, with all its paranoid thinking, might have believed it to
> be possible. So XP is still with us and will be until deep into next
> year.
>
> I should mention here that much of this mess, I strongly believe, is
> due to Microsoft's recent obsession with Google and online search.
> Now
> Microsoft wants to be in the advertising business because Google is
> in
> the advertising business. Meanwhile, it can't do its real job.
>
>
> So what can Microsoft do to improve things with Vista? Here are
> three
> suggestions:
>
> 1. It can give up on the stupid variations and lower the price on
> the
> one good Vista, Vista Ultimate. I'd say $99 would be a price
> everyone
> can live with.
>
> 2. Microsoft can scuttle the entire product. Why not? Work on a
> whole
> new OS starting today with one team and work on SP3 for XP with
> another team to keep users on Windows.
>
> 3. Roll out Vista 2.0. Figure out some way to add some nifty
> features,
> perhaps stolen from the next version of the Mac OS. Bring in some
> outside designers if you have to. Oh, and lower the price on this
> one,
> too.
>
> I remember the old Bill Gates speeches of the mid-1980s when
> Microsoft, as he told it, "sold code." Selling code was what he did,
> and selling code is a terrific business once you are established.
> It's
> even better if you can monopolize a market with your code. It's easy
> money compared with most businesses. Halo 3 is code. It sold $175
> million worth of code on its first day of release. Once code is
> fixed
> in place and burned onto a CD-ROM or DVD, it has a manufacturing
> cost
> of a buck or two and sells for anywhere from $30 to $1,000 or more.
>
> But Microsoft sees a new kid on the block, Google. Google is a
> service
> combined with an advertising sales engine. It looks profitable, too.
> But is it as profitable as selling code? Apparently Microsoft thinks
> it might be. Besides, there is no $2 manufacturing cost.
>
> Until now, Microsoft could sell code better than anyone, but it
> seems
> the company would rather sell services: software as a service, ads,
> search engine results--you name it. This is like the local
> storefront
> that opens as a knife-sharpening business and is soon selling junk
> jewelry, moose heads, toaster repair, and cheap chocolate. In the
> meantime, the knife-sharpening business goes by the wayside. This is
> what has happened to Microsoft, and Vista is the result.
>
> I'm certainly not going to be a happy camper if I have to switch to
> a
> Mac or Linux system full-time, yet that is exactly where this
> scatterbrained company seems to be sending me.

Adam Albright wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:54:21 -0800, Frank <> wrote:
>
>
>>Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin] wrote:
>>
>>>John C. Dvorak has been wrong so many times he has become the most
>>>irrelevant technology journalist of the 20th and 21st century. When Windows
>>>3.0 was released, he said people would check it out once then go back to
>>>DOS.
>>
>>Yeah.
>>Hard to believe he still has a column.
>
>
> Hard to believe anybody could be as stupid as you, but you are.
>

Ah is the little mr pig all ****ed off cause I've kicked his little
piggy arse all over this ng?
Is that what's bothering you, you little rat brain pig of human being?
Too bad you stupid moron. You deserve ever boot you get from my #13's.
Loser!
Frank