The Vista Death Watch

[Delerious]

Microsoft reacts to this Apple crap and gets accused of anti-trust violations. Bundle a media player because the Mac does - get the RealPlayer folks to cry foul. Bundle a web browser - predator.

It's not the bundling that's the problem. It's the integration. I remember at least one security update for WMP that I had to install on Win2k even though I never use it. I have no problems with MS bundling whatever they want with their OS. My gripe was not being able to uninstall programs I don't use or have a need for, such as the media player.

[disturbed1]

Hmm.

OpenGL is, of course, open and implemented on the top three platforms. Are OpenGL games on Windows also on Mac? (Not a contentious question - I'm just curious.)

For the most part yes. This makes it easy to make a game cross platform. That's why Unreal 3 will be out for Windows and Linux. As was the previous versions of Unreal, Doom, and Quake. The Crysis team recently hired a new dev to port the game to OpenGL for the PS3. I personally have no idea how it is currently going, but there are rumors that a beta was tested with OpenGL that produced higher frame rates and less system demand. The good thing about using OpenGL instead of DirectX 10, you aren't locking your buyers into Vista. If the game uses OpenGL, a would be buyer could have Win98/2000/XP/Vista. Believe it or not, there are still 100,000's of people out there still with Win98 on their PCs.

My sister's husband refuses to let me upgrade his PC to another OS. Even though we (my sister and I) have lectured and proven our points of reasons not to use 98, he persists. She uses 2000/MintOS, each of her children run Ubuntu, while he's stuck with 98. It's kind of tongue in check every time we hear a complaint about BSODs and lock ups.

Microsoft Office has always been a big seller on Macs. Now M$ is selling thousands of copies of full XP or Vista to run in dual boot or virtual on the Intel Macs.

Hope the people that run Vista in a Virtual Machine read the EULA. For most versions this will violate it.

For Vista Home Basic and Home Premium Editions:
“USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.”
http://parallelsvirtualization.blogspot.com/2007/01/vista-is-here-so-what-does-it-mean-for.html

[oldandinthe way]

From an antitrust point of view the problem has been the "bundling". Removing the integration has been part of the "solution".

Put all of this against the background of the consumer who does not wish to pay for any software.

The typical consumer views the cost of the O/S as part of the cost of the computer system. Unless he is buying a new system, he continues to run the O/S it came with. That's why Win95, 98 and ME are still in service. There has been no reason to upgrade.

Manufacturers of PCs have recognized this from the days of the Kaypro running CP/M where the combined retails on the software bundle exceeded the selling price of the machine. Packard-Bell brought this into the world of the PC with a vengeance.

Most consumer-oriented manufactured PCs offer software in their bundle to supplement the capabilities of the O/S. As Windows features have increased they have needed less of this. Such software helped fuel the installed bases of companies like Roxio and Nero, and kept the companies alive while they built their meager retail sales. These companies and others who sell OEM software enemies of O/S expansion. As are companies who attempt to sell subscription services or upgrades for their "bundled" software.

Rarely do consumers complain about bundling, unless their system comes with trialware and they actually use it, like it and have to buy it.

In the computer press and other publicity organs peopled by Apple enthusiasts one can find comparions to Microsoft O/Ss but virtually never to an actual end-user bundle. Apple advertising is similarly focused and has been so for a very long time. The natural reaction is O/S feature bloat.

[RLT69]

Rarely do consumers complain about bundling, unless their system comes with trialware and they actually use it, like it and have to buy it.

Bottom line most consumers do not want bundling - from cable channels to software. If you asked them all they would want is a web browser, email client, media client and some word processor and that's it.

The problem with Microsoft is they do not play well with others. They hide their APIs and file formats.

You want to use WordPerfect but it doesn't support the latest Word format because Microsoft has not released that information and Word seems to run a little bit faster. You decide to use Word but can't open a WordPerfects file because Word does not support that format; solution is to open file in WordPerfect and save in Word format!

You want to use Samba but Microsoft refuses to release it's networking protocols.

You want to use Java but Microsoft wants to "enhance" the JVM. So any Java app written for Windows won't run other platforms.

You want to use the ISO standard file format ODF but Microsoft refuses to support it in their products.

The list is endless. Compare that with Linux. Linux tries to work with everyone. Linxu has a treasure trove of different applications and development environments and what not. You can use whatever you want. Linux wants you to play with everyone. Microsoft does not.

If Microsoft truly believed it put out the better product they would have no problem with inter-operating with others. As such they see inter-operating as a threat to their bottom line as opposed to a source of profit. Apple suffers from a similar closed mindedness, mostly from the hardware end.

Times are changing.

[videobread]

From CNET article, today: "New tests have revealed that Windows XP with the beta Service Pack 3 has twice the performance of Vista, even with its long-awaited Service Pack 1."

http://www.news.com/Windows-XP-outshines-Vista-in-benchmarking-test/2100-1016_3-622020...l?tag=nefd.top

Guess it's back to the drawing board for Bill Gates. Reminds me of the days when the Wintel monopoly made me upgrade hardware and software every year so my kids could play the latest games. Glad those days are over. How many times can Bill repackage the same old windows. It's just the platform!

If Gates ever wants to stop supporting XP to force Vista on us, I think XP should be nationalized and supported by the user community until something that is actually better comes along.

[JohnnyMalaria]

And the nonsense of the WMP-free versions (the "Edition N" ones - named, incidently by the EU and not MS) is that MS had to pay to develop and provide ongoing support for those versions (including Vista Edition Ns) - yet hardly anyone buys them.

The EU screamed anti-trust, provide a different version because that's what people want. Well, no they don't.

The costs of the litigation, the product line extension etc are born by the consumers of the non-N versions.

If someone does get Edition N, the first thing they need to do is install a media player - almost invariably WMP.

Does OS X come as an option without Quicktime or iTunes? What about Time Machine? What if I don't want a backup tool that Apple insist on providing? What if.....? Ultimately, you'd have to buy a PC with a blank hard drive.

What if Ford had to offer a line of cars without built-in stereo systems to give people a choice? Or, sorry, the house doesn't have any windows (no pun intended) yet - you have to choose.

What a farce.

[oldandinthe way]

The EU antitrust standard unlike US anti-trust standards does not consider damage to the consumer as its basis. It considers damage to competitors.

Users prefer bundling - if they do not have to pay more for it. Cable TV is not the same as computer software. Bundling forced by content-providers has raised cable TV costs for all subscribers - not just those who want the content. An enormous portion of the cable bills are for sports programming. In order to obtain NESN in New England cable companies are forced to obtain it for EVERY subscriber, not just SOX or Celtics fans. Some smaller cable systems have voiced their support for creating a separate sports tier which would remove most of the consumer resistance to bundling.

WordPerfect is an obsolete product. There is no consumer interest. I offered an unopened retail copy of the latest Word Perfect on Ebay and couldn't get a $25 opening bid. A look at completed auctions showed my experience to be common.

Not Microsoft's job to spend money or limit development to benefit a computer industry ghost.

Microsoft enhanced the JVM because it didn't work, and Sun was slow to remedy the problems in the spec. Not surprising since Sun derived no economic benefit from happy customers. Should Microsoft have left the consumer high and dry because of Sun?

The consumer cares little about file formats or anything else under the hood. They want to do what they want to do, and pay as little as possible to do it. Other examples of this include the ad-based revenue model for the Internet. The subscription model is just about dead.

The EU has never had goals which look like this. Not just in anti-trust, but in every economic area. Eurpoean standards of living are lower than the US, European consumers pay more for just about everything, and are taxed at dramitically higher levels. True they have government supported health care, fatter pensions for goverment employees and greater job security. But their companies are rarely able to compete effectively in the free market, require government subsidies, and increased non-tariff barriers.

Its amazing how whenever Microsoft allows its strategy to be influenced by other companies, they gget charged with anti-trust.

What company decided that web browsers should be free? Nope - not Microsoft - it was Netscape. Netscape was going to make their money selling server software and they needed a base of browsers out there. Guess what - the public wouldn't pay for servers and Apache under Linux was the r4eal cause of Netscape's failure.

[disturbed1]

And the nonsense of the WMP-free versions (the "Edition N" ones - named, incidently by the EU and not MS) is that MS had to pay to develop and provide ongoing support for those versions (including Vista Edition Ns) - yet hardly anyone buys them.

The EU screamed anti-trust, provide a different version because that's what people want. Well, no they don't.

The costs of the litigation, the product line extension etc are born by the consumers of the non-N versions.

If someone does get Edition N, the first thing they need to do is install a media player - almost invariably WMP.

Does OS X come as an option without Quicktime or iTunes? What about Time Machine? What if I don't want a backup tool that Apple insist on providing? What if.....? Ultimately, you'd have to buy a PC with a blank hard drive.

What if Ford had to offer a line of cars without built-in stereo systems to give people a choice? Or, sorry, the house doesn't have any windows (no pun intended) yet - you have to choose.

What a farce.

The actual lawsuit wasn't because it was there, it was because it was monopolized into the system. There wasn't a way to properly give the user a choice of default Web Browser, Email Client, media player. If you clicked a shortcut to a web page IE would open. Even if you had Opera, or Netscape installed. Microsoft's reasoning was that the code was deeply integrated to the underlying OS. They were forced to either offer a choice or remove the software. Your points about OS X cover my same argument as well. If it was bad for Microsoft, wouldn't it be bad for all? However, because of these lawsuits, a person can NOW set default applications to handle certain tasks. This option was not there before Windows XP (SP1?)

All of these quibles over Vista is just history repeated, yet again. In fact it's almost the exact same statements made when XP came out. XP sucks, XP is slow. XP is full of bugs. DirectX 9 offers no improvement. Oh My GOD!!!!! What do you mean I have to have 512mb of RAM?!!!??? The system came with 128mb, isn't that enough? It's also the same thing that happened between 3.1 and 95/98. Why should I upgrade to Windows 2000 server NT4.0 works just fine, the cost is too high...........Then 98 to 2000/XP, where's the real DOS mode? Now none of my apps will work These things happen in all software cycles. A version is tested to best case possible, then sold to the public for further testing/code fixing. There isn't one peace of software ever created that is 100% bug free. XP didn't become a good OS until SP2. 2000 has 4 service packs. 95 needed OSR2, 98 had to become SE, WindowsME was just dropped to move everyone to XP, it was a small buffer.

That's what Vista is, a small buffer. There are so many features missing from Vista that microsoft wanted to include, but didn't for what ever reason (money, technical limits, stupid user syndrome). MS has a few options though at this point. They will look at the installed base and decide to market Vista+1 if the installed base is small enough to garner new purchases. If it's large enough then new features will be added through service packs. Windows users should be happy that Microsoft doesn't charge for service packs the way Apple does.

I don't believe Vista+1 will come out until Microsoft has enough time to poorly copy another software's innovations. IE7 <> Firefox, Aero <> Beryl <> Aqua.

[RLT69]

WordPerfect is an obsolete product. There is no consumer interest. I offered an unopened retail copy of the latest Word Perfect on Ebay and couldn't get a $25 opening bid. A look at completed auctions showed my experience to be common.

Not Microsoft's job to spend money or limit developement to benefit a computer industry ghost.

Microsoft enhanced the JVM because it didn't work, and Sun was slow to remedy the problems in the spec. Not surprising since Sun derived no economic benefit from happy customers. Should Microsoft have left the consumer high and dry because of Sun?

No consumer interest...gee I wondered how that happened. In 1996 WordPerfect was not obsolete. But starting then and going forward Microsoft prevented inter-operating between the two products. Something you ignore.

Ebay is hardly a measure of consumer interest. WordPerfect is still made today so obviously there is consumer interest.

How many different file formats does Word support! But somehow providing support for the current version of WordPerfect is going to break the bank? That's a absurd.

Do have any knowledge of the agreement between Sun and Microsoft of Java's JVM? Sun licensed the JVM development to Microsoft as it did to Apple and anyone else. Microsoft developed the JVM for Windows, Apple for it's platform and Sun for Solaris and other Unixes.

Now what happened next? Microsoft decided to change the JVM. Microsoft decided to enhance it such that any code written on Windows would not run on Apple or on Solaris or on any other platform that had a JVM. Microsoft wasn't fixing it! This was in clear violation of their agreement with Sun. Sun stopped Microsoft from working on the JVM and Sun took on the development of the JVM for Windows. Microsoft in turn claimed that they could not longer distribute the JRE with Windows. This was not true. Microsoft could continue to distribute the JRE with Windows. Microsoft was forbidden to do anything with the JVM.

Thus Sun did not leave any Windows users "high and dry" as you claim.

For people who claim to hate Zealotry, you sure do a good job of it

[JohnnyMalaria]

How many different file formats does Word support! But somehow providing support for the current version of WordPerfect is going to break the bank? That's a absurd.

Er...why don't Corel develop the capability to export to/import from Word? Why should the onus be on MS to help a competitor?

[oldandinthe way]

Word Perfect was a package which has been obsolete for a lot longer than since 1996. Its original strength was the fact that it was a keystroke capable copy of the Wang Word Processor. It had great success in the corporate market and therefore with home users who wanted to use what they did at work.

When Windows was introduced, Word Perfect and Lotus the leader in spreadsheets said it would never catch on and continued to develop solely their DOS based products. Microsoft developed Word and Excel for the Windows Envirionment.

Bad bets all around. Windows caught on. Word and Excel had an enormous head start. WordPerfect and 1-2-3 never recovered their lost market positions. Word Perfect for Windows had nothing in particular going for it. The Wang advantage chucked in the Windows transition. Lotus bought Samna the only other Windows Word Processor but really didn't make any headroads with it other than some bundling deals.

The original WordPerfect company was acquired and the product made its way to Corel, the owner of a variety of stray dogs and cats. Where it has languished.

Sun did not take on the development of the JVM for Windows after Microsoft violated the contract, they took offered their own JVM before. Yes Microsoft violated the contract, but it was because Sun failed to enhance the standard in a timely manner, and when they did the Microsoft enhancements were retroactively incompatible. This is what comes of playing nice with people whose goals differ from yours.

I am not a Microsoft Zealot. I am a realist who recognizes the importance of their position in the market and the insignificance of their competitors.

As for leaving the users high and dry, Sun did exactly that during the period when Microsoft made their enhancements (bug fixes), failing to deliver required spec changes.

After the resolution of the legal, Microsoft effectively severed their ties to Java concentrating on ActiveX and XML development. And sun no longer received free distribution services. Many computer manufacturers chose to make up for these services and distribute on their systems.

I have plenty to criticize Microsoft for, including having gotten sucked into Java.

[SCDVD]

This "why doesn't software product X import file format Y" is an endless debate. Here's another one. Why doesn't Photoshop import Corel Draw files? There has to be a line somewhere and wherever that line is, someone isn't going to like it. It isn't a trivial software development task to provide for the ability to import an alien file format.

[oldandinthe way]

How many different file formats does Word support! But somehow providing support for the current version of WordPerfect is going to break the bank? That's a absurd.

Er...why don't Corel develop the capability to export to/import from Word? Why should the onus be on MS to help a competitor?

The reason is obviously Microsoft should do it because no one wants the capability. When Microsoft announced its intention to support PDF formats in Word, Adobe went ballistic and threatened anti-trust action. That's because people would love to avoid buying acrobat to convert their word documents to pdf.

[MOVIEGEEK]

The reason is obviously Microsoft should do it because no one wants the capability. When Microsoft announced its intention to support PDF formats in Word, Adobe went ballistic and threatened anti-trust action. That's because people would love to avoid buying acrobat to convert their word documents to pdf.

Microsoft should just buy Adobe et al and be done with it.

[oldandinthe way]

The reason is obviously Microsoft should do it because no one wants the capability. When Microsoft announced its intention to support PDF formats in Word, Adobe went ballistic and threatened anti-trust action. That's because people would love to avoid buying acrobat to convert their word documents to pdf.

Microsoft should just buy Adobe et al and be done with it.

God forbid. Bloated, slow and buggy software is contagious.

[JohnnyMalaria]

This all pales into insignificance compared to.....


LOTUS NOTES

[mats.hogberg]

security has not proved to be important enough to encourage businesses to upgrade to Vista.

People want security, and would surely embrace it, if it wasn't the "in your face" approach MS has taken with Vista. Security to Average Joe is not to allow someone not in front of the keyboard do anything to the computer. Vistas take on security is to protect the computer from the Average Joe at the keyboard. Joe doesn't want the screen to go all black and show an alert, like something really bad has happened, when he opens the Control Panel. He doesn't want to be asked for credentials when he's decided to start or install an application.
In essence MS is saying: "Hey, so you whined about how insecre previous Windows versions was? Well, here you are - Now you take responsibility for what can be trusted or not - see how easy it is!"

/Mats

[Dv8ted2]

You do realize that Microsoft cannot win. No matter what they do they catch guff from all sides. People whined about stability and usability. Microsoft created Win2k and XP. Then people whined that 2k and XP are not secure enough and they should do something about it. They created Vista and yet there are still complaints. You cannot please everyone all of the time.

I have had some small annoyances, but overall I have found Vista to be a stable operating system that makes more of a concerted effort to enforce security. I do not see that as a bad thing.

People want security, and would surely embrace it, if it wasn't the "in your face" approach MS has taken with Vista. Security to Average Joe is not to allow someone not in front of the keyboard do anything to the computer. Vistas take on security is to protect the computer from the Average Joe at the keyboard. Joe doesn't want the screen to go all black and show an alert, like something really bad has happened, when he opens the Control Panel.

This is not really all that different from Linux and Unix. You would need to provide a password because that is an administrative function.

[mats.hogberg]

People want security, and would surely embrace it, if it wasn't the "in your face" approach MS has taken with Vista. Security to Average Joe is not to allow someone not in front of the keyboard do anything to the computer. Vistas take on security is to protect the computer from the Average Joe at the keyboard. Joe doesn't want the screen to go all black and show an alert, like something really bad has happened, when he opens the Control Panel.

This is not really all that different from Linux and Unix. You would need to provide a password because that is an administrative function.

Yes it's different. On Unix, if you didn't have the rights to run the control panel, it wouldn't run. (Vista's version is a little like Debians SUDO, which I also dislike.) End of story. Unix doesn't push the responsibility over on the user. Log on as admin (root) and do the admin tasks. Log on as user, and do user tasks. No inbetween. That's how things has always been on Unix.
Windows on the other hand, has spoiled its user base with allowing them to do anything at any time. Suddenly disallowing this is (IMO) the wrong approach, as the security issue the user is concerned with is not that he/she will break anything, but that the computer is vulnerable to attacks from the outside (like Blaster and such). There's no doubt in my mind that the biggest security risk is usually in front of the keyboard, but that's not what A Joe wants to hear. He wants full control. A car analogy: You don't want a car that refuses to turn left when you turn the wheel, just because the car isn't sure there's a good road leading that way. You want a car that will turn when you turn the wheel (without asking 3 times "Are you sure you want to turn left?") and that can take the punishment should it happen to be no road leading left.
That's the kind of security A Joe would actually spend a few bucks on.

/Mats

[oldandinthe way]

Approaches to computer security are debateable.

What is not debateable is that neither consumers nor businesses find the security deficiencies to be significant enough to justify any major O/S or hardware upgrades.

Technolgy for secure computing platforms have been available for quite a few years. The companies who developed them and have licensing agreements with Intel, Microsoft, Seagate and others have yet to make any money - because Nobody Cares!!!! Check out companies like WAVX.

[noki]

"...When Microsoft announced its intention to support PDF formats in Word, Adobe went ballistic and threatened anti-trust action..That's because people would love to avoid buying acrobat to convert their word documents to pdf..."

why when there are many freeware/opensource PDF drivers available??

[edDV]

"...When Microsoft announced its intention to support PDF formats in Word, Adobe went ballistic and threatened anti-trust action..That's because people would love to avoid buying acrobat to convert their word documents to pdf..."

why when there are many freeware/opensource PDF drivers available??

Because saving to PDF export in Office would impact Adobe's key market for Acrobat Pro. Consumers don't pay $450 but many secretaries have the full version on their book shelf.

[rkr1958]

Microsoft hones its internal sales pitch for Vista Service Pack 1
With all the controversy as of late regarding the extent to which Service Pack (SP) 1 will improve Windows Vista’s performance, what is Microsoft saying?

Externally, not much. Throughout 2007, Microsoft officials have tried to downplay SP1, hoping to convince users that they don’t need to wait for the first service pack before moving to Windows Vista. As a result, executives have been less-than-forthcoming when it comes to the performance gains they expect Vista SP1 will deliver.

Internally, however, the company is promising some pretty hefty improvements for users who install SP1, according to sources.

I hear that Microsoft is telling its own employees - whom it is hoping to convince to install the new escrow build of te Vista SP1 Release Candidate (RC) test build in order to give the code a final check before the company begins making it available to testers outside the company — that Vista SP1 will:

Improve by 25 percent local file copying on the same disk on the same machine
Improve by 45 percent the speed of copying files from a remote non-Windows Vista system to a SP1 system
Speed up by 50 percent the rate of copying files from a remote SP1 system to a local SP1 system
Improve the reading time for large images by roughly 50 percent
Improve the time to resume from standby for a “certain class” of USB hubs by about 18 percent
Improve the performance of user login on corporate PCs outside of the corporate environment so that it is comparable with login inside companies
What else will Vista SP1 fix? Microsoft is dangling these other SP1 improvements in front of its employees internally, sources said, including:

Reduction of the number of User Account Control (UAC) prompts from four to one when creating or renaming a folder at a protected location
Improvement of compatibility with third-party diagnostic tools that rely on raw sockets
Addition of a password hint during the initial set up of Vista SP1
Resolution of many of the most common causes of crashes and hangs in Vista, especially those involving Windows Calendar, Windows Media Player and a number of other drivers included with Vista
Microsoft is expected to make the near-final Vista SP1 RC code available publicly in mid-December. The final version of Vista SP1 is due out in the first calendar quarter of 2008.

referenced blog

[oldandinthe way]

EdDV has it right. The general rule is - if there is a need for a new feature and Microsoft adds it to the O/S, its a predatory practce and violates someones idea of anti-trust laws.

If nobody wants it, then Microsoft is free to implement it.

[rkr1958]

Don't Upgrade to Vista, UK Gov't Agency Tells Schools
The cost of upgrading Britain's schools to Vista would be $350 million, two-thirds of which go to deployment costs, testing and hardware upgrades.

full story

In my opinion, very good advice. "If it ain't broke ... don't fix it". Especially, if it cost that much.

[edDV]

Don't Upgrade to Vista, UK Gov't Agency Tells Schools
The cost of upgrading Britain's schools to Vista would be $350 million, two-thirds of which go to deployment costs, testing and hardware upgrades.

full story

In my opinion, very good advice. "If it ain't broke ... don't fix it". Especially, if it cost that much.

Why would they upgrade except as a coordinated plan with application deployment. If anyone in gov't upgrades XP to Vista for no other reason they should be fired. But we all know government workers are never fired for incompetence. They get rewarded for it.