Vista == Mojave == Wow?

[Albuquerque]

/me feels vindicated

a bunch of neophytes that had never used Vista before, whoopdy doo MS

But isn't that the point they were trying to make? Perception?

Even my mother has heard about how Vista is slow, terrible, and whatever else from my stepfather -- neither of whom have ever used Vista. When they came out for my wedding a few months ago, they used my laptop to check mail and a few other items.

Neither even seemed to notice it was a different operating system for a few days until finally my stepfather clued in: "hey, how'd you make your start button look cool?"

"Oh, this is Vista? I thought it was slow and buggy and stuff... But it seems to be just fine..."

Yeah. On a 1.6Ghz Core Duo (not the Core 2), 2Gb of DDR2-533 ram, an x1300 128mb video card and a 5200RPM drive.

If my mid-50's parents are hearing about how Vista sucks (and it doesn't), then it really is a perception problem. Neither of them thought it sucked after using it, but how are they to know if people who are supposedly in the know keep telling them something false?

Kinda like you telling all your clients about how it sucked and how you removed it when they have the first even so much as inkling of a problem -- a problem that may have been resolved by simply changing an option.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

But isn't that the point they were trying to make? Perception?

Even my mother has heard about how Vista is slow, terrible, and whatever else from my stepfather -- neither of whom have ever used Vista. When they came out for my wedding a few months ago, they used my laptop to check mail and a few other items.

Neither even seemed to notice it was a different operating system for a few days until finally my stepfather clued in: "hey, how'd you make your start button look cool?"

"Oh, this is Vista? I thought it was slow and buggy and stuff... But it seems to be just fine..."

Yeah. On a 1.6Ghz Core Duo (not the Core 2), 2Gb of DDR2-533 ram, an x1300 128mb video card and a 5200RPM drive.

If my mid-50's parents are hearing about how Vista sucks (and it doesn't), then it really is a perception problem. Neither of them thought it sucked after using it, but how are they to know if people who are supposedly in the know keep telling them something false?

I understand this is an excellent tool for MS' marketeers to use against all the sheeple that don't know any better.

Doesn't mean I have to like it. I think it is disingenuous at best, completely dishonest and slimey at worst.

As I said before, I'd like to see the test results with a more knowledgeable focus group, you know, people that had actually used Vista and disliked it.

Kinda like you telling all your clients about how it sucked and how you removed it when they have the first even so much as inkling of a problem -- a problem that may have been resolved by simply changing an option.

PCs are not only my job but my hobby and my passion. I take offense to your insinuation that I have anything other than the best interest of my customer at heart when I am servicing their PC(s). I am on a first-name basis with most every customer I serve, and most of my customers come back because of the personal service I offer.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

As I said before, I'd like to see the test results with a more knowledgeable focus group, you know, people that had actually used Vista and disliked it.

Yeah, I'd like to see people surveyed who know what a proper security model looks like, who are going to want to use non-standard device drivers, who will be looking to see how much windows search indexing inconveniences them, who will be checking for DX10 rendering advantages/disadvantages, multi-core use, etc.

MS basically sat Vista in front of a load of ignorant and basic users and said "Look at the pretty pictures!" Try that with knowledgeable power users, and see how far you get trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

 

[Albuquerque]

PCs are not only my job but my hobby and my passion. I take offense to your insinuation that I have anything other than the best interest of my customer at heart when I am servicing their PC(s). I am on a first-name basis with most every customer I serve, and most of my customers come back because of the personal service I offer.

I dont' know you personally, but a used car salesman can say the exact same thing and mean it too.

Your bias against Vista has been apparent in this thread more than once, and you made it a point to mention how you removed Vista from client's PC's rather than fix whatever issue they had -- and then do the verbal mumbo-jumbo to them to ease them into believing what you say is the gospel truth.

And why would they think otherwise? You're "smart" to them, and they are relatively convinced that they aren't. Thus, you're in a position to tell them what to think, and your bias extends to them -- and they will thank you for it.

And again, while I don't know you personally, that does seem to paint a rather ugly picture...

Yeah, I'd like to see people surveyed who know what a proper security model looks like, who are going to want to use non-standard device drivers, who will be looking to see how much windows search indexing inconveniences them, who will be checking for DX10 rendering advantages/disadvantages, multi-core use, etc.

MS basically sat Vista in front of a load of ignorant and basic users and said "Look at the pretty pictures!" Try that with knowledgeable power users, and see how far you get trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

And I'd like to see how many of the people you just asked for represent the "buying public"... Given all the qualifications you just issued, I'd have to say it's a very small percentage at best.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

I dont' know you personally, but a used car salesman can say the exact same thing and mean it too.

Well **** you too.

Your bias against Vista has been apparent in this thread more than once,

Ohs the noes! How dare I have an opinion about a polarizing technology product wich has given me and my users all kinds of headaches

and you made it a point to mention how you removed Vista from client's PC's rather than fix whatever issue they had

That's not what I said at all. If the problem goes away by means of my action, it has been fixed, by definition. Not all product deficiencies can be overcome without being replaced. Any tech worth a **** knows that.

-- and then do the verbal mumbo-jumbo to them to ease them into believing what you say is the gospel truth.

If the customer knew what was necessary to correct the issue they were having, they would not bring their system to me (a trusted, experienced technician) in the first place. It is my ****ing job to make the best decision for my customer, because they lack the ability to do so. Also, when I recommend someone downgrade to XP, I am not selling my customer an additional service, it's all included in my price structure (flat fee for ALL service, except on-site which is of course hourly).

And why would they think otherwise? You're "smart" to them, and they are relatively convinced that they aren't. Thus, you're in a position to tell them what to think, and your bias extends to them -- and they will thank you for it.

You seem to understand the issue, but have arrived at the wrong conclusion, unless you believe I am a con artist.

And again, while I don't know you personally, that does seem to paint a rather ugly picture...

Sure, if you're on a witch hunt. You say you don't know me personally, but you're happy to assume I am a shady character, and equate me to the stereotypical "used car salesman".

And I'd like to see how many of the people you just asked for represent the "buying public"... Given all the qualifications you just issued, I'd have to say it's a very small percentage at best.

BZB obviously described a much smaller segment of those Vista users that are having or had poor experiences with Vista (unfriendly UI, bugs, software/hw incompatibility). Revert to my proposed test group (simply people that had used Vista and experienced problems) and it's a whole different story, because you'll be hard-pressed to find a Vista user that hasn't had a headache or two with the OS.

It's a marketing ploy, rather than an actual improvement to the product. This is my objection, and apparently the objection of several others in this thread.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

And I'd like to see how many of the people you just asked for represent the "buying public"... Given all the qualifications you just issued, I'd have to say it's a very small percentage at best.

Sorry, but "Lookit! It sure looks purdy!" isn't good enough for me, and this apparently is what this latest MS marketing trick was all about. It seems you're basically saying that because most of the buying public is stupid, they should have to put up with Vista and it's issues.

MS should fix the issues (and price), not try to convince me everything is great based on them conning the kind of numptys that can't figure out why their network cables won't fit in their USB sockets.

There's many reasons to like Vista, but there's also a lot of reasons not to, so you end up exchanging XPs well understood (and mostly by now fixed) issues for Vista's new issues. Dell and HP are still shipping XP for a reason. Businesses are skipping Vista for good reasons. Even MS is bringing forwards Windows 7 because they know Vista is not good enough. Vista's difficult birth, and the features that were stripped out of it should tell you that Vista should be a lot better (and thus more compelling) than it is.

You like Vista and think it's great. I get that. But it's just not good enough IMO, and a lot of other people think the same - at least those who know enough to actually have an informed opinion, as opposed to the chimps used in the MS marketing trick at the start of this thread.

What these people say whilst looking at the pretty pictures shown to them by MS Marketing has no value to me, as their background prohibits them from having the experience or knowledge to give an informed view at anything other than the most superficial level. Heck, I bet you could ask them what they thought of the things they were shown eg "how was the file management - copying, pasting, moving and stuff?" and their answer would be "huh?" No use at all to me.

 

[Skrying]

It's a perception issue. Stated again and again and again and again. People have this bad idea of Vista that is entirely unrealistic. And if I hear "businesses are skipping" Vista again I'll run my head into a wall... do you have any idea why a business might skip an OS if they have no use for it's advances and changes? Businesses skip OS release all the time, skipping them is more common than migrating to them I'd venture to guess.

This Mojave experiment is hardly for us. I can't believe some of you think it is. It's a real mind blowing experience that you guys actually think you're the targeted audience with this marketing. It's just show other average users that Vista is not this piece of crap they've heard, it's for the average "I don't know what that green button does" market.

 

[Sxotty]

Youguys realize this is just to counter apple's ad campaign which isn't exactly that different. That is the point of comparison, not whether the people tricked were ignorant louts or not.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

It's a perception issue. Stated again and again and again and again. People have this bad idea of Vista that is entirely unrealistic. And if I hear "businesses are skipping" Vista again I'll run my head into a wall... do you have any idea why a business might skip an OS if they have no use for it's advances and changes? Businesses skip OS release all the time, skipping them is more common than migrating to them I'd venture to guess.

Lol! Why do you think MS has ended XP support, only to extend it again and again? Why do you think they target businesses? I'm pretty sure it's not okay with MS that businesses just skip their latest OS.

There's a couple of simple reasons why businesses skip OSes like Vista - "too expensive, not enough benefit". Which is exactly the sort of thing that make's Redmond's blood run cold, because they sure don't make a profit from people upgrading at retail. Without the big corporate buyers wanting thousands of licences, they are sunk.

So it's great that MS has got some distinctly Joe Average users and impressed them, but these are exactly the sort of people that are not doing to go to a store and spend a couple of hundred bucks upgrading their OSes, and then figuring out why their stuff no longer works.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

Youguys realize this is just to counter apple's ad campaign which isn't exactly that different. That is the point of comparison, not whether the people tricked were ignorant louts or not.

It's not that we don't understand the "why" of the campaign, we disagree with the premise of the campaign itself, particularly the ploy of tricking a bunch of neophytes that had no legitimate gripes with Vista by way of never having used it.

 

[Skrying]

Lol! Why do you think MS has ended XP support, only to extend it again and again? Why do you think they target businesses? I'm pretty sure it's not okay with MS that businesses just skip their latest OS.

There's a couple of simple reasons why businesses skip OSes like Vista - "too expensive, not enough benefit". Which is exactly the sort of thing that make's Redmond's blood run cold, because they sure don't make a profit from people upgrading at retail. Without the big corporate buyers wanting thousands of licences, they are sunk.

So it's great that MS has got some distinctly Joe Average users and impressed them, but these are exactly the sort of people that are not doing to go to a store and spend a couple of hundred bucks upgrading their OSes, and then figuring out why their stuff no longer works.

Nowhere did I state Microsoft was just damn fine with people skipping Vista in anyway. I did however state that businesses skip an OS release or Service Pack release on a regular basis because the difficulty in migration, the cost of the migration, the user trouble with migration, the no real benefit and a number of other areas.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

It's a perception issue. Stated again and again and again and again.

Likewise understood, again and again and again. Disagreement does not equate to a comprehension problem, believe it or not

People have this bad idea of Vista that is entirely unrealistic.

I agree that there is a perception problem with Vista, particularly among people that have not used the O.S. Once again though, our objection to this is the deceitful means used to give the appearance of an improved product, in lieu of actually improving said product.

And if I hear "businesses are skipping" Vista again I'll run my head into a wall... do you have any idea why a business might skip an OS if they have no use for it's advances and changes? Businesses skip OS release all the time, skipping them is more common than migrating to them I'd venture to guess.

It's been shown time and again that IT managers across the country overwhelmingly disapprove of migrating their company's PCs to Vista. Upgrade cycles are irrelevant, in this context.

This Mojave experiment is hardly for us. I can't believe some of you think it is. It's a real mind blowing experience that you guys actually think you're the targeted audience with this marketing. It's just show other average users that Vista is not this piece of crap they've heard, it's for the average "I don't know what that green button does" market.

What? No one here thinks that. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Unless you're actually saying we shouldn't be commenting on it because of this, in which case I say: pffffffft

 

[Skrying]

Likewise understood, again and again and again. Disagreement does not equate to a comprehension problem, believe it or not

I agree that there is a perception problem with Vista, particularly among people that have not used the O.S. Once again though, our objection to this is the deceitful means used to give the appearance of an improved product, in lieu of actually improving said product.

It's been shown time and again that IT managers across the country overwhelmingly disapprove of migrating their company's PCs to Vista. Upgrade cycles are irrelevant, in this context.

What? No one here thinks that. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Unless you're actually saying we shouldn't be commenting on it because of this, in which case I say: pffffffft

Coming from someone who likes Vista, a lot, I wouldn't upgrade to it either on a network... not a chance. It doesn't do anything for you at all in the vast majority of cases. That's why I'm not shocked by Vista poor adoption rate in a business setting. Is this bad for Microsoft? Very, but it doesn't make Vista bad, it just makes it more consumer orientated no matter what the intentions were.

You seem to have a comprehension problem when you want the Mojave videos to be something else. Microsoft can't change the mind of a populace that has tried the OS out and doesn't like it. Their final step though is to counter the fallout caused by said populace not liking the OS. If used effectively, something Microsoft can't do, in a TV commercial these videos could go a long way in changing the minds of your average consumer about what they've heard about Vista. It's not about not talking about it, it's about talking about it in a context that makes sense...

 

[Sxotty]

It's not that we don't understand the "why" of the campaign, we disagree with the premise of the campaign itself, particularly the ploy of tricking a bunch of neophytes that had no legitimate gripes with Vista by way of never having used it.

So do you disagree with the premise of the mac ads? Do you disagree with the premise of the majority of advertising? IF that is the case you are consistent, but I fail to see why you are expressing umbrage with MS as opposed to the entire advertising industry.

 

[Richard]

Then I would like to ask you how you measured that VS 2008 was noticably slower. Because with any decent sized solution VS 2008 is much faster. For large classes and files I would even say night-and-day faster.

I didn't measure it in any objective way. I had both VS2005 and VC# 08 Express running on the same machine with the same two solutions and the later was noticeably slower in the IDE.

My personal favorites are:.NET 3.5 support, multi-targeting, support for C# 3.0 language features (auto-properties, vars, object and collection initializers, extension methods and lamda methods) even in .NET 2.0 projects. (I was pretty sceptical at first but these things really make code easier to read and write, if used correctly.)

I have to use .net 2.0 so >2 support isn't very relevant for me. Yep, being able to easily target a .net platform was one of those good things I noticed but again I don't get to decide which version to use. I'll look up C# 3.0; from some of those links you posted it does seem interesting.

Faster editor, faster IDE overall, faster rebuild of large solutions, faster debugger and better multi-threading handling, too

As above, not in my experience. Build speed didn't seem that different but the IDE was annoyingly slow.

much improved winforms editor, faster and much better behavoir when one of your controls throws an exception in design mode

I don't know about faster but being more resilient indeed a good feature because it doesn't take much for the designer to throw a hissy fit and stop drawing.

JavaScript intellisense and JavaScript debugging. Not perfect, but SP1 will improve on this.

I'm sure other people will find this useful.

Various smaller IDE improvements (e.g. better docking, "Open Folder in Windows Explorer" context menu)

Yep, I did notice these little improvements throughout but (aside from multi-framework targeting) nothing that made me go "oh that's exactly what I was looking for".

Edit: The WPF editor in VS 2008 is very, very basic. SP1 is said to bring improvements in this area. But then you should really use Expression Blend to build your UIs. It actually quite good and integrates nicely with VS 2008.

The Expression suite is not free though so again, I can't just say "hey guys for this project we're using this". I did try it during beta 2 or RC, can't remember now. What I do remember is the program being extremely slow. This time I don't mean slow as a performance bottleneck, but slow as in deliberate. Time to drag stuff around, like someone stuffed strawberry jam on my mouse (damn, this analogy does not works as well with today's laser rodents ).

Could have simply been because of its pre-release status, I'll give it a another try.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

Coming from someone who likes Vista, a lot, I wouldn't upgrade to it either on a network... not a chance. It doesn't do anything for you at all in the vast majority of cases. That's why I'm not shocked by Vista poor adoption rate in a business setting. Is this bad for Microsoft? Very, but it doesn't make Vista bad, it just makes it more consumer orientated no matter what the intentions were.

Poor business adoption rate affects the product's perception in all markets, though, because business users are also home users. If one's company refuses to migrate to Vista, why would one use Vista at home unless they believed there to be no alternative (i.e., a neophyte user that doesn't know it is possible to downgrade to XP).

You seem to have a comprehension problem when you want the Mojave videos to be something else.

Not at all. Again, just because I disagree with your opinion does not make me an idiot, as you imply. You may want to change your debate tactics, catch more flies with honey and all that...

Microsoft can't change the mind of a populace that has tried the OS out and doesn't like it.

Of course they can. You know how? By fixing Vista's biggest problems, perceived or actual.

Their final step though is to counter the fallout caused by said populace not liking the OS. If used effectively, something Microsoft can't do, in a TV commercial these videos could go a long way in changing the minds of your average consumer about what they've heard about Vista. It's not about not talking about it, it's about talking about it in a context that makes sense...

I can't believe you endorse this charade... You honestly believe that this is the proper course of action for MS to take, rather than trying to actually improve Vista by addressing people's biggest complaints? That is a sign of pure arrogance on MS' part, and I won't even say what it implies about you.

 

[Skrying]

Poor business adoption rate affects the product's perception in all markets, though, because business users are also home users. If one's company refuses to migrate to Vista, why would one use Vista at home unless they believed there to be no alternative (i.e., a neophyte user that doesn't know it is possible to downgrade to XP).

Home users tend to upgrade the OS when they purchase a new computer. Vista offers much more to a home user than XP does. The bundled applications for one actually would be much more useful to your average home user. What does a business need DVD Maker for? Photo Gallery? Media Center? The much improved security? A business is either going to not want those at all or with security they're going to have some robust back end to handle it and not trust the OS. UAC while annoying for a power user also will go in some ways in protecting a home user (some, not a lot as I do think it appears to much to become a real warning). Also the sidebar can handle functions home users might have never heard of.

Of course they can. You know how? By fixing Vista's biggest problems, perceived or actual.

I would venture to guess work is being done on another service pack. What it might change I have no clue.

I can't believe you endorse this charade... You honestly believe that this is the proper course of action for MS to take, rather than trying to actually improve Vista by addressing people's biggest complaints? That is a sign of pure arrogance on MS' part, and I won't even say what it implies about you.

You assume Microsoft is doing nothing, they've already release SP1 which by your own comments improved Vista. Marketing departments don't write code, so how is an action taken by that segment actively holding back the other? Or do you seriously want to keep making that conclusion?

Not at all. Again, just because I disagree with your opinion does not make me an idiot, as you imply. You may want to change your debate tactics, catch more flies with honey and all that...

I am aggressive, but you're passively so. I rather say what I do then read your tip toeing bullshit, does that help? That's the biggest difference with me, I find it much worse to throw out small comments here or there that indirectly insult someone, I rather make my point upfront and smash it into your face.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

Home users tend to upgrade the OS when they purchase a new computer. Vista offers much more to a home user than XP does. The bundled applications for one actually would be much more useful to your average home user. What does a business need DVD Maker for? Photo Gallery? Media Center? The much improved security? A business is either going to not want those at all or with security they're going to have some robust back end to handle it and not trust the OS. UAC while annoying for a power user also will go in some ways in protecting a home user (some, not a lot as I do think it appears to much to become a real warning). Also the sidebar can handle functions home users might have never heard of.

You sound like a Vista commercial. Everyone here knows these things already.

I would venture to guess work is being done on another service pack. What it might change I have no clue.

Guess all you like, but perception issues require constant and clear communication in order to correct. MS is failing miserably here.

You assume Microsoft is doing nothing,

Not at all, you've misinterpreted my comments. All I'm saying is that this is the wrong move, in light of the situation. They are using "old school" marketing tricks at a time when they need to be as open and honest as they can. Lying about Vista sales numbers and denying that there are problems is not a proper course of action, IMHO.

they've already release SP1 which by your own comments improved Vista.

Yep. Still not enough for many users though, myself included.

Marketing departments don't write code, so how is an action taken by that segment actively holding back the other? Or do you seriously want to keep making that conclusion?

MS' marketing department is not an independent entity. MS as a corporation has to "sign off" on every advertising campaign its marketing department embarks upon. You can't wave off responsibility that easily.

I am aggressive, but you're passively so. I rather say what I do then read your tip toeing bullshit, does that help? That's the biggest difference with me, I find it much worse to throw out small comments here or there that indirectly insult someone, I rather make my point upfront and smash it into your face.

If you find my comments insulting that would be a PERCEPTION ISSUE on your part. I am not insulting you. If I were doing so, there would be no question. Believe me, I've had enough conversations with staff here to know what is acceptable conversant tone and language, and what is not.

 

[Skrying]

You're pretty amazing. You're either missing the point on purpose or you're brain dead and I think it's missing the point on purpose. Waving points away as being "already known here" doesn't mean anything at all. Starting a marketing campaign and fixing an OS are not canceling each other out. You know this, I know you know this, but you can keep acting ignorant of it if you so wish.

 

[N00b]

I have to use .net 2.0 so >2 support isn't very relevant for me. Yep, being able to easily target a .net platform was one of those good things I noticed but again I don't get to decide which version to use. I'll look up C# 3.0; from some of those links you posted it does seem interesting.

Any particular reason why you're fixed on 2.0? Because basically 3.5 is 2.0 with some new assemblies and a new compiler and some tweaks to the runtime. Very few breaking changes (with the exception of ThreadPool). Nothing like going from 1.1 to 2.0.

As above, not in my experience. Build speed didn't seem that different but the IDE was annoyingly slow.

That's strange. Maybe it's a problem with your installation. Maybe some Add-In misbeheaving? Everybody I know agrees it's faster.

I don't know about faster but being more resilient indeed a good feature because it doesn't take much for the designer to throw a hissy fit and stop drawing.

Sic. I still remember in VS 2005 pre SP1 when a control threw an exception you had to correct the error, close all windows, exit VS, clean the obj and bin directory, re-open VS, rebuild the solution and if you were lucky the forms designer would display it correctly then. It's much better now.

The Expression suite is not free though so again, I can't just say "hey guys for this project we're using this". I did try it during beta 2 or RC, can't remember now. What I do remember is the program being extremely slow. This time I don't mean slow as a performance bottleneck, but slow as in deliberate. Time to drag stuff around, like someone stuffed strawberry jam on my mouse (damn, this analogy does not works as well with today's laser rodents ).

No, the Expression Suite is not free, but Expression Blend (& Web) is included with MSDN Premium. The Suite is included with Team Suite + MSDN, I think. Depending on what you are doing, MSDN might be a good choice. Blend itself can be pretty demanding on your system, though Blend 2 is better than is predecessor. BTW, if you're with a small company, your company might be interested in the microsoft partner program, if you don't already know about it.

Could have simply been because of its pre-release status, I'll give it a another try.

Maybe you should just wait for VS 2008 SP1 & .NET 3.5 SP1 (rumors put it tomorrow - insert salt here) and then retry the whole combo.