While Vista was originally touted by Microsoft as the operating system savior we've all been waiting for, it has turned out to be one of the biggest blunders in technology.
Blunder? How so? It works, in fact it works very well. In even more fact, it's far more stable than XP was, especially at this particular point in it's life cycle.
With a host of issues that are inexcusable and features that are taken from the Mac OS X and Linux playbook, Microsoft has once again lost sight of what we really want.
Uh? What? Can he be any
less specific and vague? What inexusable issues is he talking about? And why is he complaining about 'good' features that were inspired from MacOS and Linux? Hell, the entire idea of a "Windowed" operating system came from Xerox in the first place -- Apple is just as guilty as Microsoft in that regard.
And while each of the "Extras" runs just fine, Microsoft's "Extras" blunder is just another reason why the company must abandon Vista before it's too late.
Abandon an entire operating system because "extras" aren't in overwhelming supply? WTF reasoning is this?
The first indication that Microsoft should abandon Vista is its poor sales figures. According to a recent report titled "Windows Vista Still Underperforming in U.S. Retail" from NPD, Vista sales are significantly behind XP sales during its early days. Even worse for Redmond, some are reverting to XP, citing issues with compatibility and overall design. And if that wasn't enough, Macs continue to surge and with the impending release of Leopard, Microsoft may be in for a rough holiday season.
That's funny, Microsoft was (still is, last I checked) making record profits from OS sales. Here's a hint: Microsoft's primary income from operating systems doesn't come from "off the shelf" sales. Can he guess where they
do come from?
With each passing day, it's becoming blatantly clear that Microsoft released Vista too early and the company's continual mistakes and promises that can't be kept are further annoying the Windows faithful.
Again, maybe less vague? Here's something less vague: every passing day, it becomes more apparent that hardware vendors did not allocate ANY time to creating new drivers for Vista, even though they had several
years of advance notice and at least a year of beta to test with.
Here's something even LESS vague: Can Leapord install even ONE QUARTER of the entire gammut of Windows Vista supported hardware? Video input and output devices, audio output and input devices, storage devices, printers and plotters, a HUGE range of digital scanners (like digital XRay machines?), multifunction printer/fax/scanner devices? How much true hardware compatibility does Mac really have over Vista? Does it even come halfway close? Howabout Linux?
Much talk has been given to Service Pack 1 and how this update should address many of the issues users have with Vista, but I simply don't agree. Will SP1 eliminate the ridiculous Microsoft licensing schemes? Will SP1 drop the price on the higher-end versions? Will SP1 eliminate the need for users to buy a new computer just to use the faulty OS?
Will Leapord eliminate being able to install OSX on every Mac in your house for free? Will Leapord make OSX install on your Max Classic? Will it invalidate the need to dual-boot a Windows OS on a Mac box because people want to use software still isn't available on the Mac platform after the last 15 years?
SP1 will do nothing but fix the holes and issues we currently know about and create even more. As we all know from the days of Windows ME and even XP, Microsoft is not the best company at finding and addressing security issues, and chances are, Vista will be no different.
Wait, so he already knows what SP1 includes (and what it doesn't...)?
One significant problem that I have with Vista is its inclusion of new DRM, specifically the company's decision to install Protected Video Path. To prevent a person from copying (or in most cases, backing up) a movie, the operating system provides process isolation and if an unverified component is in use, the operating system shuts down DRM content. For the first time on any operating system, we're not even allowed to backup our favorite movies? Come on.
Oh noes, I can't copy every thing on the planet and make dupes. Oh wait, you can still copy DVD's just like you always could -- but you can't copy DRM-enabled content like HDDVD's and BluRay devices. Here's a question: how many of those can you even PLAY on a Mac? And then copy?
Never before have I seen such an abysmal start to an operating system release. For almost a year, people have been adopting Vista and becoming incensed by how poorly it operates. Not only does it cost too much, it requires more to run than XP, there is still poor driver support, and that draconian licensing scheme is a by-product of Microsoft picking on the wrong people.
Same arguments when XP came out, same arguments when 95 came out. Every new OS paradigm shift comes with higher hardware requirements, new licensing schemes, and less than stellar availability of drivers. As for DRM -- this isn't Microsoft's wanton disregard for everything holy, this is a REQUIREMENT of being able to support DRM media (read: BluRay and HDDVD camps require these). None of that DRM stuff gets anywhere in your way if you're not playing DRM-enabled media.
The road ahead looks dangerous for Vista and Microsoft must realize that. With Mac OS X hot on its tail, Vista is simply not capable of competing at an OS level with some of the best software around. If Microsoft continues down this path, it will be Vista that will bring the software giant to its knees--not Bill Gates' departure.
Maybe when Mac can even hit 10% of the entire installed base of computers on this planet Microsoft might care. Wake me when it happens...