10 Ways Microsoft Can Make Windows 7 Lucky
 Joe Wilcox
News Commentary. Microsoft needs Windows Vista's successor to be Lucky 7. I'll explain how. |
On Monday, I highlighted 10 things I told Microsoft about Windows Vista and what it needed to succeed Windows XP.
Commenter bigAPE complained: "If the author is such a visionary why is he writing blogs instead of the next Windows OS?" The commenter called the post another "told you so article." I gave the advice before Vista shipped, and it was mostly right. I didn't second-guess afterward. Anyone who followed my analyst blog between 2004-2006 would have seen this advice spread out among various posts.
But bigAPE has a point about making a positive contribution. So, once again, I offer my advice to Microsoft, this time for Windows 7. I encourage Microsoft Watch readers to do the same with their comments.
These 10 things intentionally mirror those from Monday's post.
1. Windows 7 has to be a whole lot better than Windows Vista. Better doesn't mean tons more features. CDs replaced vinyl records because of perceived better audio quality, small disc size and greater convenience. The older analog technology actually delivered better fidelity because it captured the full sound wave; the digital successor samples and compresses the sound wave. DVDs rapidly replaced VHS tapes for similar reasons. The experience was much better.
Microsoft's first priority should be reducing complexity. There, the Zune Marketplace UI has shown one way. The software/service is highly functional and fun, yet sharply streamlined compared with iTunes or Windows Media Player. Windows 7 should emphasize simplicity while hiding complexity. For example, must there really be 50 icons in Control Panel?
Any process requiring more than two mouse clicks is too complicated. Every Wizard is unnecessary. Windows 7 must wring the complexity out of the user interface. Microsoft can make Windows 7 more compelling by radically—and I mean RADICALLY—changing the UI. The old motif has got to go, and its replacement shouldn't be one motif but several. I'll explain more in No. 5 and 6.
2. Windows 7 must generate a compelling hardware refresh cycle. DVDs and CDs share one important similarity: They delivered such a good experience that people willingly repurchased the music and movies they already owned, but in the new formats. People squawked about Vista's hefty hardware requirements, but that's only because there weren't obvious upgrade benefits. If Vista delivered a better experience, hardware requirements wouldn't have impeded sales.
The starting place for Windows 7 must be development for different hardware, not just PCs. The operating system must be streamlined enough to run on smart phones and powerful enough for entertainment centers. Hardware choice will drive sales. Successfully executed, the approach would more rapidly move the Windows ecosystem to Version 7 rather than repeat the situation where XP dragged down Vista sales.
Microsoft's fundamental development philosophy should be: one operating system to rule them all. If Apple can put Mac OS X derivatives on other hardware, such as iPhone, surely Microsoft can do something similar with Windows 7 (I'm not referring to a separate, embedded product). Apple takes a streamlined feature approach. The emphasis is on the right features rather than more of them. Microsoft must do likewise, appropriately for each device category. I'll explain more in #4.
3. Windows 7 should go back to basics. The browser has got to come out of the operating system. Internet Explorer has caused usability and security problems for far too long. Instead, Microsoft should improve the IP layer and how Windows communicates across corporate and home networks and the Internet. It's the networking stack, rather than the browser, that will provide the compelling development platform for future devices and services. It's through the IP stack that Windows 7 could deliver on Chief Software Architect Ray Ozzie's convoluted "mesh" vision.
4. Call it Windows 7 Core. Nos. 1-3 are predicated on Microsoft stripping Windows 7 down to the kernel and building it back up in modular fashion. Windows Server 2008 and Windows 7 share common code heritage. Microsoft must bring the role concept from Windows Server 2008 to Windows 7. I'll discuss that more in No. 6.
The starting point must be the core, the kernel. Supposedly, Microsoft has made a fresh start with the Windows 7 kernel. From a usability and security perspective, that's exactly what Microsoft should do. But Windows 7 has to be more by being less: It has to be the kernel, and to developers and other partners almost nothing more. Microsoft should even consider separately branding the Windows 7 kernel.
The kernel's importance is too often overlooked in Microsoft communications to customers and partners. The open-source community understands. Look, for example, at the importance placed on the Linux kernel. Linux UI projects come and go, but the kernel remains core, whether from pragmatic architectural or operating system brand identities.
5. Windows 7 should be familiar. Windows Vista was too much like the disastrous Windows Me II. Windows 7 must remind people of something else, something better. Successful products share several attributes; one of the most important: They take a familiar motif, extend it and allow people to do something they wished they could do but couldn't before. Photo editing/management software is a great example. The motif is similar to the familiar photo album, but people can resize photos, crop them and change them. The starting point is familiarity.
Microsoft's Windows 7 challenge will be adopting several familiar motifs and applying them to the user interface. The UI motifs would have to transcend devices, too. I would encourage Microsoft to start small. From the kernel, build out Windows 7 first for a mobile device and there refine UI approaches. Apple has shown the way with iPhone. Some suggested familiar starting points:
- Touch. Human beings are tool users. People should be able to manipulate any content with their fingers—no mouse required. Multitouch works for iPhone and Surface.
- Sound. Microsoft already is investing in voice command technologies, for mobile phones and Ford Sync. Voice needs to be an essential component of the new user interface. Can you say "Star Trek"?
- Command Line. Web search is the (now familiar) command line for the Internet. I'd like to see a command line option that acts as a shell for IP networking capabilities requested in No. 3. The command line, whether input by voice or text, would visually represent content or connections against the otherwise blank backdrop.
Microsoft might be concerned that enterprises would balk at such dramatic changes. But IT organizations embraced the Office 2007 UI. Besides, the new motifs would transcend devices. Once people get used to voice commands in one place, they expect them everywhere else. That's the point of those great Ford Sync TV commercials.
6. One Windows 7 version is enough. From the Windows 7 Core, OEMs should be able to customize the operating system for specific hardware and usage roles. I envision kind of a cross between Windows Server 2008 usage roles and Windows Embedded hardware roles. Microsoft can charge partners based on the role(s) and the associated Windows 7 features built up around the kernel. Businesses would pay for the hardware-and-software combination plus a client access license fee for connecting the IP stack to another device or service.
I would strongly discourage letting consumers and even some enterprises choose roles during Windows 7 installation, with perhaps the exception of some services running on the IP stack (like Windows Live).
The roles should be more hardware dependent. For example, handheld readers for FedEx or UPS would have a much different price than desktop PCs or thin clients.
7. Put the user experience before bean-counter, monetary considerations. Microsoft won't fess up, so I'll do it for the company. Vista's SKU strategy was solely for the benefit of the company. It's the only sense I can make of the convoluted SKU strategy. Three objectives I see:
- Shift the sales mix to Pro SKUs.
- Increase the Windows selling price.
- Move more businesses to acquire a client OS through volume licensing.
From a bottom-line business perspective, the strategy worked. But at a greater cost: ticked-off customers and a damaged Windows brand. Microsoft can get there by adopting Nos. 1-6, particularly No. 6. One version is more than enough.
8. Windows 7 must give much, through sync. Synchronization is the other killer UI, and it's essential to fulfilling Ozzie's mesh vision. Windows 7 needs a synchronization engine bound to the IP stack. This sync platform would become the hub for data exchange regardless of format or service. It's a tough challenge and maybe even beyond Microsoft resources for Windows 7.
9. Windows Vista Capable means backward compatibility. I've suggested some radical changes to Windows that simply are unworkable because of backward compatibility considerations. It's time Microsoft put all that virtualization technology to good use. The company should radically rearchitect the operating system, while using virtualization to provide backward compatibility to Windows Vista and XP. Then the company can put all those Windows Vista Capable stickers to good use, on Windows 7 PCs.
10. Windows 7 security features must increase usability by decreasing complexity. Microsoft's approach to security is fundamentally flawed. Should I repeat that? Microsoft puts too much responsibility on end users. Cars don't warn drivers about looking for oncoming traffic when they flip the left turn signal. That's the automotive equivalent of a Windows Vista UAC (User Account Control) popup. Instead, the cars are engineered to protect the drivers in the event of a crash or to set off airbags.
Microsoft must reduce the security complexity through good software development—and not just writing good code, but in approach to UIs and security motifs. Windows Live OneCare is on the right path with the stoplight motif. Green is good. Red means possible trouble.
Think! Microsoft developers, think! How can end users enjoy Windows when they're constantly warned about possible dangers? UAC and IE 7 popups are real downers, man.
Create, Communicate, Collaborate with IT Professionals at Ziff Davis Enterprise IT Link.
Comments (76)
Cars don't warn drivers about looking for oncoming traffic when they flip the left turn signal. That's the automotive equivalent of a Windows Vista UAC (User Account Control) popup. Instead, the cars are engineered to protect the drivers in the event of a crash or to set off airbags
LOL... good analogy... :)
Posted by Mugunth | March 21, 2008 4:15 AM
Joe, sir, you are an idiot. Again and again.
Posted by Moon | March 21, 2008 4:47 AM
I think that you are very good.
I praise it.
And I support you.
Posted by 岡崎市 不動産 | March 21, 2008 5:06 AM
After over 25 years of selling upgrades of DOS/Dimdows based on adding more and more features and functions, you expect Microsoft to turn around and try to offer a new version with _fewer_ bells and whistles? Not a chance. Remember, part of the reason Vista has received such a cool reception was precisely because so many of the promised features had to be dropped before release.
And you seem to have this fond belief that virtualization will allow the provision of backward compatibility at low cost in complexity. It will not. Like it or not, virtualization _is_ complex.
By the way, why does your comment system still say "you may use HTML tags for style" when that is a complete lie?
Posted by Lawrence D'Oliveiro | March 21, 2008 6:05 AM
9 and 10 are contradictory. Windows NT was originally built on a very secure framework, with inherent support for multiple users, filesystem protection, even automatic file encryption. Unfortunately, they threw it all away with Dimdows XP, by letting applications require admin privileges as a matter of course.
It's now too late to remedy that mistake. UAC was a kludge to try to restore some semblance of order, but it's just compounding the problem. There's no way to assert any sane security model (whether the original NT one or something new) without breaking applications wholesale. If you do that, then there goes your compatibility.
It's time to recognize that Dimdows is an evolutionary dead-end. It's painted itself into a corner, and there's no way out.
Posted by Lawrence D'Oliveiro | March 21, 2008 6:14 AM
I'll make a prediction here and I'll see if I am right in a few months...er I mean years... lol
If MSFT tries to pull another fast one and satisfy the needs of Hollywood or any entertainment company before even considering the needs of their core customers first. MSFT will be finished in the Operating system arena.
Strong words? No.
The public not only woke up to the fact that Vista is a disaster, but they are also waking up to WHY Vista is a disaster.
The public is learning that the DRM in Vista is the culprit that hogs their CPU and requires high ram requirements. The public is not really all that happy about the back doors that Vista has and they are not all pleased with knowing that their own computer is checking to see what they are doing 30 times a second.
Its one thing if Windows 7 was based on the Vista kernel, its a entirely different matter if Windows 7 will have the albatross of DRM in Windows 7.
There might be hope that MSFT has learned from the issues with Vista and that server 2008 does not contain DRM from reports that I have read. Some have said that server 2008 is 20% faster than Vista.
Now on to something constructive. There are trends to lean and mean. The EePc is one example, according to a recent article. The company is planning to produce three million of their laptops with Windows XP Home...so one can only assume that XP really will not be discontinued in three months.
If Windows 7 has the same requirements as XP Home, or needs less resources (if thats possible). then Windows 7 can be put on those computers instead of XP Home.
If MSFT could cater to low end, lean and "green", older legacy, as well as newer high hardware gaming machines with Windows 7 then MSFT could maybe at least try to hold on to the market share of the OS world...when Windows 7 is released.
I say try to hold on to the market share as there are now government goals, agendas and mandates to go open source. Right now there is little MSFT can do about that, and they know it.
MSFT needs to go back to the basics. Make a good decent OS with no bloat, no DRM, no back doors. Just make something that will do the job well and do it well. Put your customers first, note where the trends are and address them.
Make a OS that won't crash, make a OS that is compatible with existing equipment, and for God sakes get off the high horse of trying to be high and mighty to the entertainment industry.
While you tried to make Vista the one stop for all entertainment needs , the draconian controls that came with that haughty goal pissed off your customer base.
While you were trying to "WOW" them (pull the wool over your customers eyes with some eye candy) still yet another country has just gone open source. A lot of these defections seem to all come with in the time frame since Vista was released..unless it is all a just a strange coincidence.
The old saying is that once you lose a customer, you lost them for life is basic business 101. Also business 101 basics is if its not working, cut it loose (Vista). If it is a good money maker and a good overall product and people are happy to use it, then do not discontinue it (XP).
You just lost 23,000 school computers in the Philippines and you are poised to lose all of Russia by 2010 and I won't even mention the other countries and government entities.
We who have used MSFT products over the many years expect much better from a world class company. Give us valid reasons to continue using your products and take care of your core customers first and maybe we will stay with your products for a few more years. Don't wow us, just make it reliable and as trouble free as you can.
Posted by Ralph | March 21, 2008 8:26 AM
So what you're basically saying is "Copy Apple".
Posted by To Sum Up | March 21, 2008 8:30 AM
"Not a chance. Remember, part of the reason Vista has received such a cool reception was precisely because so many of the promised features had to be dropped before release."
Actually, the problem with Vista was over promising and under(or not) delivering. What is being suggested by the author for Windows 7 is different; simplify it GREATLY, and make it work without the user having to be an MCP. MS has all the info they need on user habits, they just need to analyze it. The turn signal is a great metaphor. Put airbags and seatbelts in, and reduce the UAC to that little warning beep that turns off when you buckle the seatbelt.
"UAC was a kludge to try to restore some semblance of order, but it's just compounding the problem. There's no way to assert any sane security model (whether the original NT one or something new) without breaking applications wholesale. If you do that, then there goes your compatibility."
I seem to read in the article a suggestion of a total re-design from the ground up, which would, if done correctly, eliminate the near useless UAC implmentation in use now.
I like the idea, no! ! *love*, desire, crave, demand, etc; the concept of 1 sku which then would by default or by choice, install the features necessary for the device\user. The trick here is MS traditionally hasnt been too good at anticipating those choices. Again, they have terabytes of user data at their disposal to analyze to figure this out.
I agree with the overall concept of this article and would add\expound on:
>Shrink the OS core size,no more 4gb OS's!(unless you install everything under the sun for it, excluding non OS appications in the size calcs.)
>Allow the users to choose from a short list(5 max), a "role" for the pc on setup(with options more deeply thought out and which has the apps most commonly used in that role installed AND preconfigured so the user doesnt have to do anything). Certainly include and advanced\custom option, but most users dont understand all the techinical jargon and config options or their importance. Install the basics for a given role and STOP installiing everyhting under the sun. If they decide they need more functionality, make it EASY for them to find and add it later!
>It should *just* WORK! Again, a user shouldnt need to be an MCP to use it. Take a page from Apples playbook; Their stuff is simple, intuitive, and gets the job done. Why? Because apple looks at how the majority of users do things and figures out how to make it simpler. In the case of new features, they think about how they should work and how to do it by a user having the least amount of skills that can use a computer (can read, turn on a computer, and use a pointing device of some kind).
I do desktop tech support, and I am AMAZED at the LACK of user aptitude. Part of this is indeed on the user, but most of it is CERTAINLY that Windows is to difficult to figure and use *effectively* in a reasonable amount of time.
Lastly, mouse clicks: I worked production support of enterprise systems for 7 years. We were constantly taking these kludgey piles of interconnected apps designed by the developers(I dont really fault them, but too long to explain here) and automating\simplfying\making them self healing. the golden rule was:If it takes more than 2-3 clicks and you do that task more than twice a week, automate it because its a waste of time. Users should be free to focus on the task at hand, not on how to navigate around to the buttons in the right order to get things done.
summary: simplify, simplify simplify.
Posted by rctankboy | March 21, 2008 8:48 AM
lol so basically your advice is for microsoft to be more like apple. Heres my Advice. Just go buy a mac and stop waiting for MS to maybe make a good product.
Posted by zippy | March 21, 2008 8:49 AM
I was going to post a very long list of reasons why I dislike Vista (and yes, I am using it. Both to compose this and at home, so I can talk) but it seems Ralph beat me to it and said almost exactly what I was going to say.
In general, the problem I have with Vista is this:
1) DRM, DRM, DRM. I can't put a DVD in my computer and share that over my home network? And why would that be? I still need a directshow compliant player to play the thing, but seriously? This isn't a decision my OS should be making for me. I can do far more nefarious things with and to that DVD on my computer than I could by sharing it. Strike one.
2) DirectX10. So, you put a new version of DirectX in your shiny new OS and tell the previous faithful users to take a hike. Good strategy. Worked out well I would say. So well in fact that only people upgrading their whole PC have looked into getting a DX10 compliant card for Vista. Well, that and the huge ram requirement... Strike two...
3) I really should repeat the DRM objection here because it has no place whatsoever in an OS. NONE. FREAKING EVER... Basically I will spin off a thought on that same thread with this one though: Don't tell me what I can or cannot do with my computer. Don't try to control what I can and cannot do with my computer. I don't need a freaking nanny. If I did, I wouldn't know how to logon and I would trade in my MCP. I feel like installing a product containing DeCSS on my computer just to rebel, and an OS shouldn't make you feel like that. Strike three, and we all know what comes after that.
There is a lot that is great about vista: the "breadcrumb" feature that lets you jump back quickly to a higher level in the file tree, definitly the new media center features in Ultimate and Home Premium (yeah, MCE 2005 had some of this stuff, but not polished like the newest version), Photo Gallery (yeah, its a knockoff of Picassa, but who cares), etc. Microsoft however should be focusing on how to help the home user do more with their PC not restrict us to doing only what they deem appropriate. MP4 files are still not fully supported in Media Player, and I am not talking about the current half-baked support. Whats up with that? Microsoft can do better than they are and thats the shame.
The WOW ended long before it started, and even longer before it became the marketing slogan. Whatever they decide to do, for gods sake don't give up on supporting or fixing Vista. Some people actually use the thing and the only greater tragedy than Vista is currently would be to give the double finger to the users that actually use it. Unlike Windows ME its fixable. Mostly.
Posted by Denis | March 21, 2008 9:14 AM
Forgot one thing: I use Vista at work. For work. Most of the techs I know don't have a whole bunch of extra time on their hands to study up on the new OS unless they are lucky enough to have a work environment/employer that will set aside time for that purpose. Its the equivalent of bringing work home and my family is important to me. So, I as much as possible I learn by using the product. On that front:
1) When did somebody decide it would be a good idea to kill off support for the old help file format? When something breaks on a new OS or with an application where do you go? Thats right, the help file for that product (through menu or whatever). I know there is a patch for it so you can re-enable the old help style but good lord.
2) No compatible Adminpak for Vista? Yeah, I know the old version "sorta" works but I don't need "sorta" when I am trying to get stuff done. The solution? RDP. I actually need to do things quickly during the day and short of keeping and RDP session open to a managment server all day long thats not a good answer. So, we have the much hyped RSAT coming (Remote Systems Administration Tools) or something. Come on MSFT. Don't release the client until you have tools that AT LEAST MANAGE THE CURRENT GENERATION OF SERVERS COMPLETELY.
3) If you want to increase your products likelyhood of acceptance, win us techs over. You can't do that by flubbing any of the above and if you don't win us, we won't recommend your junk to our families because who ends up supporting it? You got it. US. We Do. Get it right and we are free advertising. You also can't get it right with the bugs that existed in it at release such as the file transfer timeout bug. File transfers are pretty basic. Drop the DRM and spend that coding money on the OS core. It will pay dividends.
If the OS speaks for itself in performance and features maybe you can drop the money you spend on that stupid get the facts site.
Posted by Dennis | March 21, 2008 9:34 AM
In he end, who really cares?
MSFT has decisively left the stage of OS. It has alienated so many, so long and so intensely that the vast majority of users are getting ready to burst away.
These recommendations might have been useful years ago but the entire ethos of the Bloatfarm is to shovel in more "features" and more "flexibility" so that the enduser experience is still more befuddled. The whole ethos of Redmond is that Redmond demands the customer become a systems engineer. Hello, why buy an OS that only confuses?
Redmond is congenitally incapable of doing any good OS any further. The firm has travelled down a blind alley with its allies of DRM and complex "features" for too long. It has become too much of a me-too company with not the least capability of innovation (cf. Windows Mobile vs. iPhone). MSFT is a bloat blob incapable of anything useful other than bi-yearly updates that offer, at very best, a slight increase in functionality for too much money.
MSFT and Windows are hopeless cases. Why put up with the increasing frustration? Why not simply admit that MSFT is and has been an unethical failure as an OS company and get on with it. Horses were once a good mode of urban transportation but had an important drawback: horsesh!t. MSFT was once an important mode of transportation (to doing documents, spreadsheets and getting to the internet). However, we have found better means of transportation away from the Windows horstsh!t.
"Nuff said.
Posted by Jeremy w | March 21, 2008 9:45 AM
Based on your list Joe, M$ should just create their own Linux distro and save themselves a lot of coding - Linux and Unix have been doing what you suggest for YEARS already...
Posted by JH | March 21, 2008 10:00 AM
Joe you are dead-on the user-interfaces on the Windows platforms. In general, I still find the UI counter-intuitive after many years of working with a variety of Windows platforms.
Posted by JM | March 21, 2008 10:40 AM
Um Joe, I believe Gates and the boys tried this approach in his "moon shot" development initiative. You remember, clean sheet of paper, security is job #1, blah, blah, blah. Well the wheels came off of that wagon after a year or two, Gates made Ballmer CEO, and expedience soon trumped enthusiasm and creativity as the developers made compromise after compromise to get something shippable.
Vista is the result of a failed _process_, not a lack of vision or intellect. Until that process is fixed, there is no way MSFT can avoid the same results down the road.
Posted by Alex | March 21, 2008 11:09 AM
"The Ubuntu team is pleased to announce the beta release of Ubuntu 8.04 LTS (Long-Term Support) on desktop and server. Codenamed 'Hardy Heron,' 8.04 LTS continues Ubuntu's proud tradition of integrating the latest and greatest open source technologies into a high-quality, easy-to-use Linux distribution."
Posted by n0neXn0ne | March 21, 2008 11:44 AM
I wonder, with Apple gaining market share so fast, Vista being so unpopular, and so many people moving away from PCs to portable devices like Blackberries and iPhones, if Windows will even matter in a couple of years. Is this all just wasted effort on MS's part. I guess they have to try to preserve their monopoly, but I think the writing is on the wall. They haven't been able to move into other areas (mostly by copying other successful products like the iPod or Nintendo). If I owned their stock, I'd sell it now while its still worth something. One quarter with a negative revenue growth and it will plummet like a rock.
Posted by smist08 | March 21, 2008 12:33 PM
Ralph is right about the DRM being the number 1 problem in Vista. When users have problems playing an MP3 file, without it being all chopped up, on the newest powerhouses, and those same files play fine on old 486sx-25 machines with 36mb of ram, something is very wrong.
Joe, its been a long time or never, that you have spoke about DRM being a part of the "complexity" problem, if ever you did. Professional bloggers seem to want to avoid talking about the DRM in Vista? Wonder why? It is the core problem, and the only reason to stick the public with Vista. Otherwise, Worse, MS claims DRM had to be put in Vista so we could play Blueray and HD-DVD disks. How many of those do you see in new computers now, even more than one year since Vista was released? They are lying about that, and should not be allowed to squirm out of it. They simply wanted the controls builtin to Vista, so later they can allow Hollywood to deny you the ability to play some files, and of course, sell that ability to Hollywood.
MS could have just made something like XP Extended, and sold that instead of the crappy Vista. XP Extended is where they should have gone, fixed remaining bugs in XP, improve it. Set it up with Security that actually works. Make a limited user account as a default user account during install, and make easy to use tools for the user to be able to use it in this way. Perhaps in this way, Windows could become a more secure OS. The sercurity problem in Windows has gone on too long. UAC were not a real fix, and its debatable if its much of a help, compared to all the good security apps broken with Vista.
To sum it up;
1. Get the DRM out. If you must have DRM, then put it in an OS just for people with Blueray. Leave us other 99.99% alone.
2. Fix Windows, secure it. End all the Virus and most of the malware problems. Create limited accounts by default, and make them work easily.
3. There is no need for a completely new OS every 2 years. Just fix the bugs in the old one, make it work better.
Posted by chips | March 21, 2008 1:12 PM
Maybe I'm still in denial, but I'd add one more requirement for Windows 7, that is:
Windows 7 must be the successor to Windows XP.
In other words, MS needs to admit that Vista has failed and put XP back in the OEM and retail channel. A class action lawsuit, 100,000+ signatures at an online petition at another website, universally bad (no, terrible) reviews in the media- the writing is on the wall.
If Ballmer doesn't do this, then the board needs to step in and fire him. The next few months are what Andy Grove would characterize as a "strategic inflection point" for the company. The company cannot have Vista as their main OS for the next 2-3 years without destroying their franchise.
Posted by Jason | March 21, 2008 1:13 PM
I like the frameworks to make applications on Windows, I hope they continue to expand that and offer even more ways for third parties to develop applications. I also would like for them to remove DRM, I feel it hurts the honest user more than the dishonest one at this point.
Posted by Jesse | March 21, 2008 1:17 PM
I think you made some good points Joe, especially on the UAC front. I will also make my input that networking still needs to be easier, I said this from the outset that Networking in Vista took a step back. Even this morning I was trying to network my Vista Ultimate x64 PC with my brothers Dell Vista Basic x86 laptop, and the process was such a chore. I was able to at least access the desktop from the laptop, but am still unable to access the laptop.
It was just simple ad-hoc peer to peer network, but it was just horrible. I hope they make it easier. Maybe a little bit of Apples Bonjour methodologies would be nice.
Posted by Andre Da Costa | March 21, 2008 1:27 PM
MS thought the "complexity" problems of Vista would be solved down the road, by new more powerful and fastest machines coming out. That way the bloat might start to work.
This strategy may not work, as the USA slips into a recession, and people start to forgo, or put off the next computer purchase. Of course the richer classes will still by during a bad recession, but they will be buying Macs, in order to escape the painful Vi$ta OS.
Posted by chips | March 21, 2008 1:31 PM
I liked and agree with your comment about creating a core edition of Windows 7. I tried installing Vista Home edition, thinking it would be lighter weight by using less processing cycles, less RAM and hard drive space. Alas, same 10 GB of HDD and RAM being used - just less capabilities in Vista Home. I would really like to see a core edition of Windows 7 as well, fully capable, but without the bells and whistles. For me, as a developer, the only option is to install Windows 2008 Standard (the concept upside-down to me!), which is much faster than Vista and uses half the memory of Vista because it lacks the "pretty" Vista crap (like Aero effects and the sidebar).
Posted by Davin | March 21, 2008 1:47 PM
How could all of this be done in any sort of reasonable time frame. Vista took 5+ years and it's a mess.
Posted by Wes | March 21, 2008 1:52 PM
From what I know and have read about Microsoft, Windows 7 will be the equivalent of showing up for a Halloween party on December 24, dressed in a clown costume. It is not possible to tell someone how to fix their problems if they believe they are smarter than everyone else. Also, if Microsoft were to incorporate many of the suggestions here and elsewhere, they'd have to change their name to something other than "Microsoft".
Microsoft is in more danger than many of us realize. All it takes is one massive stockholder defection. And all it takes for that to happen is the right piece of bad news on an ever expanding pyramid of bad news. Change is rarely clean and quick. It's messy and drawn out. What we're seeing are the preliminaries to a catastrophic collapse of one of America's inFamous corporations. This is all easy for me to say because I'm not an analyst, and that qualification also means I'm probably right.
Yes Jaremy w, horses were the key to a vibrant economy, but by 1907 NYC had 120,000 horses, each one "producing" 22 pounds of manure a day (I'll let you do the math). Not to mention horses were often left to rot where they died. Two monumental health problems. The automobile came just in the nick of time.
Alex, do you recall what the what the logo was for "Moon Shot"? I believe it had two halves.
Posted by Richard Chapman | March 21, 2008 1:59 PM
I still don't see why so many are on the hate Vista bandwagon. I run it on three PC's at home and have more fun with this OS than any other. It runs smooth, networks great and all three PC's never crash.
Posted by Brian | March 21, 2008 2:08 PM
I have to agree with Brian. I got Vista running on all my personnal PCs, and I haven't once encountered any issues. Sure I may wait a few weeks before downloading Vista SP1, but at least unlike Apple, MSFT doesnt charge for its upgrades, and fixes.
Posted by echo7 | March 21, 2008 2:55 PM
Excellent story. I can't wait for an OS to deliver the items in this story. (Hope MS is up to the task).
I have to agree with every single point made above. I did move to Vista, upgrading my "new"(1 month old on XP) computer again and again to get back to XP performance (CPU, Memory, video cards x2, TV Tuner). Also, after much denial, installed XP on another boot disk to take advantage of all my new hardware for gaming (while daily computing is now equal between Vista and XP, games really show just how much power is being used up by Vista itself). I still use Vista as the default, as I do like the eye-candy of Aero, and the built in Movie maker and picture viewer/editor, are by far the easiest/best of any I've bought or downloaded, but for gaming, why play Crysis and Guitar Hero III at medium graphics under Vista, when my hardware will play them at high under XP MCE? C'mon MS, please deliver a quality O/S again - now excuse me while I go to my parents house and help my dad with yet another Windows ME problem :-(
Posted by Dan | March 21, 2008 3:01 PM
..oh yes, forgot to mention I loved the analogy of the car - that was beautiful....
Posted by Dan | March 21, 2008 3:05 PM
_but at least unlike Apple, MSFT doesnt charge for its upgrades, and fixes.
Apple charges for milestone releases -- the ".0" versions. All incremental updates after that are free.
Posted by Dan W | March 21, 2008 3:27 PM
Brian, echo7, you're both in the minority. Obviously, more than a few people have had issues with Vista. Let me relate mine:
I have two Vista PCs, one is a home-built Core 2 Duo box with 2GB of memory, and the other a Dell Dimension 9200 Quad-Core machine with 3GB.
The home-built PC, which I've been using for over a year now, has given me many wireless networking problems. Lately, the connection drops every other day and I have to disable and re-enable the connection. (Why lately? I think it's because Vista is suffering from "Windows Rot," a syndrome that's well-known to many in the IT industry. Do a Google search.)
The Dell, OTOH, runs like a slug, even though it has four cores and ample RAM. I've only had the machine for a couple of months, so it hasn't got a lot of software loaded. And it has hardly been exposed to the Internet. (The machine is my backup development system, so it doesn't get much of a workout.)
Why is the Dell so slow? I dunno. What I do know is that, someday, I will replace Vista with Linux and watch this machine soar like an eagle.
Vista is a crap OS. XP was good. I hope Windows 7 will be good, too. But skip Vista if you can. Life is too short to put up with its nonsense...
Posted by Richard | March 21, 2008 3:32 PM
Richard - Sorry to hear of the problems...if I had them, I would share my stories. But as you said, I may be one of the lucky ones. If I have one issue, it would be that when I.E. requests a dialog box for you to select a file for upload, it takes 10-20 seconds for your files to appear. This did not get fixed in SP1. Other than that, no complaints. But I do understand your frustrations and they are valid. Many people on here just want to beat MS to death.
I use Vista Ultimate on my main box. It is also my main file server for media through the Media Center Extender to my XBOX 360. That extender has been a joy to use. I have a terabyte of storage and 3 Gig of memory. All of my machines also back up to this one on weekends featuring Vista excellent backup feature.
I also have Ultimate on my laptop and Home Premium on daughter's PC.
Posted by Brian | March 21, 2008 3:49 PM
Microsoft should seriously consider building off of *nix code for their OS. They spend countless resources trying to build their own OS when they could spend those resources building off of a solid base of code. As much as the idea of a Microsoft Linux might make myself and others cringe, it could save Microsoft tons of money and give them a solid base to create individual software solutions.
Posted by Jeff | March 21, 2008 4:10 PM
Jeff, thats a rather ridiculous suggestion. Microsoft has invested billions of dollars and human developer resources in the NT code base and its working just fine. Do you know what they would have to do just build an OS from scratch off either Unix or the Linux kernel? Not to mention the applications that would have to be rewritten by both Microsoft and third party to support this new Windows based on 'nix'?
Nothing is wrong with how Windows is made, its just improving how it works and is used by the end user. Thats a completely different thing from the architecture itself. Also this is not Apple, who had to make a lengthy transition from the Classic Mac OS to the OS X platform. Microsoft did that already with its transition from Windows 9x to the single code base of NT starting with Windows XP. They have also once again streamlined the codebase with the release Vista SP1 and Server 2008 which already comes with SP1.
Apple charged users Since March 24th 2001 to October 27th, 2007 for OS X upgrades or the OS X Tax as it is well know.
I have only paid for major upgrade since I bought this Dell, and its working quite well.
Please think before you speak.
Posted by Andre Da Costa | March 21, 2008 8:02 PM
My complaints with Vista are pretty simple. I dont like the DRM if Hollywood wants the DRM then let Hollywood kick out software to dish it up. I dont see this function of the OS. I dont like the activation or MS back doors into my system with the potential threat of sending my system into a reduced functionality mode. I guess this immediately makes me a pirate to most but I know I am not. It is simply adds unnecessary code that must be patched and updated that brings no value to the customer or anti piracy protection to Microsoft. Everyones tastes are different Joe and I dont agree with many of your recommendations on Windows 7. I simply want MS to give me a basic OS. Networking, notepad and calculator core updating maybe a very basic non integrated browser to get on the Internet and enough with the back doors into the system. I have been testing Server 2008 on Virtualbox and I must say it comes fairly close to my dreams. I am uncertain about the DRM or back doors but I must say it makes one hell of a good workstation. 2008 is very lean, fast and appears solid. Untangle IE and MS would have a winner perhaps keeping them out of constant legal hot water. It is lean so you will need to (get this) add the software you choose. You will also pay more for less but in this case it might just be worth it.
Posted by Scott Freeman | March 21, 2008 10:16 PM
After watching and seeing that there are practically no limits to the ruthless and unethical behavior M$ will employ to get their way or the highway (the OOXML nuclear trainwreck being but one example), I question the wisdom of doing anything that might help that cancer on the IT landscape survive one day longer.
That said (as a jest to you, but not to the company), no worries. Microsoft apparently stopped listening to you, me, or anyone that uses their products years ago. The cracks in the dam are there and growing, water seeps through daily, and with all legal and market trouble M$ finds itself in these days, I keep expecting the dam to burst completely at anytime.
Thing is, I wonder if M$ will actually get it someday? Will Windows 7 actually learn from Vista's mistakes, or will it just revel in them? And if M$ does finally get it together and produce a decent OS in version 7, will anybody even care by then? With Macs are polished as they are these days, and with Linux finally at a level that, quite frankly, can match or exceed the Macs on the whole, will Windows 7 be just too little, too late? Time will tell.
A sidenote on DRM: DRM is, as far as I can tell, on the way out. Not surprisingly, no one wanted it, no one liked it. Even media distributors are starting to get the message and dropping it. But to add to that thought, if people are tired of being spied on by their computer or having the mothership decide what they can and can't do with it, why not take the plunge into an open source operating system where you have free access to see and change anything going on under the hood? Not to mention the free upgrades. Just a thought.
Posted by anonymous | March 21, 2008 10:22 PM
anonymous, I don't understand what you mean when you say Macs are polished, Leopard out the gate was a disaster, a bug that caused users to lose data if they copied from one partition to another. Come on, things like that remind of the mid 90's. We are in the 21st century.
The only issues Vista users faced were resolved quickly through updates for the OS and availability of newer device drivers. Mac OS X has cost users over the years, from its initial release to the most recent version. I would hope that users of that platform would get it that they are being duped by Apple into overpaying for something they could get way much cheaper from Dell, HP, Lenovo and Microsoft.
Investing in Linux is just throwing away time and money for headaches. The usability level for Linux remains at 0, even for the more advanced users. I can bet you right now that most die-hard Linux advocates have the OS dual booted with Windows Vista Ultimate. Most likely giving Vista the majority of the partition. And who says they are not running Office 2007 Ultimate either?
Posted by Andre Da Costa | March 21, 2008 11:24 PM
I find the posts of users who report absolutely no problems with Vista a little suspect. Maybe that's true, but at this point why take a chance on that Franken-OS?
Posted by JM | March 21, 2008 11:32 PM
Hey Andre, you want a barge with that denial? "Nothing is wrong with how Windows is made, its just improving how it works and is used by the end user." Now I understand how software like Vista gets made. I would encourage you and others like you to fully embrace that kind of thinking and logic. Besides, those outside the Microsoft circle don't understand the issues and problems of creating software for such a large customer base. Why am I saying these things? Because I use Linux and I want to help it succeed.
Posted by Richard Chapman | March 22, 2008 12:17 AM
Andre Da Costa is a true fan boy.what do you do work
for Billy Bob and his big mouth Uniblab Ballmer.
Posted by Who Knows | March 22, 2008 12:36 AM
Ugh, Andre. Do you even read Vista news? SP1 is inventing whole new breakages, incompatibilities, and problems. And, ironically, a lot of breakages are happening in security and antivirus software. Not to mention the plethora of problems that still persist in Vista. Though I've heard rumors that Vista SP1 does fix the glacial file copy speeds some are encountering. Which is good. Always good when an OS is capable of moving its own local files around. Important baby step toward usability.
I agree with you that I sometimes feel that Mac people might be overpaying for what they could get for much cheaper from Dell (Ubuntu), Lenovo (Suse), or HP (Suse, I think), but then, those Macbooks are pretty sweet. And I say all this without more than a cursory knowledge of OSX, so it might be pretty good too.
There probably are some XP dual boots out there, either for historical reasons or for gaming, but no one I know personally has tried Vista for more than about 20 minutes without some showstopper driving them over the edge and forcing the OS's removal.
Linux usability zero? Tell that to Canonical. Or IBM. Or NASA. Or any given serious scientific research center. As someone that's no where near an advanced user, I'm often forced to choose Linux because Windows isn't capable of doing what I want. Not "I don't know how to do it in Windows", or even "I won't spend money to buy the program that does it in Windows", but "Windows is not technically capable of performing this task, and no amount of spin or marketing can change that fact."
If investing in Linux only produced headaches, I don't think you would be reading stories almost every other day of a country mandating the use of only open source software in its government due to financial, security, compatibility, and code and/or document availability considerations.
Posted by anonymous | March 22, 2008 2:01 AM
Windows Vista customers have been complaining about problems with installing Microsofts first service pack for the unloved operating system.
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/03/20/vista_sp1_complaints/
Quotes from the link;
"But going by some angry posts on the official Vista team blog, as well as elsewhere on the interweb, plenty of frustrated customers are wrangling with the manual version of the service pack.
One poster regretted installing SP1 after spotting its availability on the WU site. In retrospect, not my finest decision, said SeppDietrich. What a disaster! It exiled all of my Nvidia drivers to the Bermuda Triangle... they're simply all GONE.
Microsoft has acknowledged that the service pack will not install on computers that use incompatible peripheral device drivers from the likes of Realtek and Intel. However, theres no mention of known problems with Nvidia drivers on Microsofts rather long list.
After failing to successfully install the service pack on his new PC because of the driver problems listed by the software giant, AkaJohnDoe concluded that: I understand Microsoft's position on this issue, and have been a proponent of Vista for some time now.
However, from this day forth, Vista is functionally stabilized on my PC. There will be no further updates. My next OS will not be Windows.
Other complaints about the service pack included sluggish response times, random crashes, and one from a puzzled Aussie who was told his language wasnt supported for his Vista Ultimate-loaded PC.
He said: Funny thing is, my language is English. Unless English (Australian) is not considered English????? Have you stupid Americans limited English to the English (United States) language pack? What a joke."
Posted by chips | March 22, 2008 2:10 AM
I agree with items 1 - 4 and would carry the suggests further. MS need to make a total break from the past. The new OS should be 64 bit with no backward compatibility. To make this workable MS could extend the life of XP and Vista for two years after the release of Windows 7 with a possible one year extension. This would allow developers ample time to rewrite their applications.
It seems that such compatibility is causing most of the security problems. You can still run DOS programs in XP. I remember that Apple made a major change in their MAC OS several years ago that did not allow the running of old MAC software. I read the complaints and predictions that it would kill Apple. Didn't happen.
The idea of a core kernel is great. I strongly agree with your idea of ONE version of Window 7. Make the install of windows similar to installing a complex application. Give choices at setup including Custom, let the user chose what they want.
Finally, applications need to be easier to move to a new computer. The Windows and Systems folders need to be off limits to applications. If Windows 7 continues to use the Registry then a separate Registry file for use by applications only should be added. That way if you move your application you could copy the file and have all the applications Registry settings. Or restrict Applications to the Program Files folder and go back to "ini" or "dat" files for configuration information.
Posted by Tom | March 22, 2008 3:25 AM
Joe,
Before you get carried away with your wishlist, you have to remember who you are dealing with.
Steven Sinofsky ("Mr Incremental") has moved from making minor changes to four versions of Office - albeit on schedule - to heading up Windows.
Anybody who thinks Sinofsky's first effort will include massive changes, raise your hand.
Posted by roger | March 22, 2008 8:27 AM
@Tom:
That isn't viable for Windows like it was Apple. Apple had very little market penetration when it made the move to Intel and it also doesn't have very many high volume third party software or hardware relationships in comparison to Windows.
I think a lot of people forget that Windows is designed to run other companies hardware and software and that relationship is key to their success.
Posted by Jesse | March 22, 2008 1:22 PM
@Tom and Jesse
Actually, it would be viable. MS doesn't need to abandon the NT line at all, just make other types of "Windows" like they did back in the days of 9x for home users, and NT for business users.
There would be a lot more pluses than minuses in Tom's suggestion for MS. Especially since they could actually setup dual boot systems and sell both OS'es preinstalled on higher end machines.
I doubt if MS could make a linux version, even if it bought Novell Suse. MS could not get along with the GPL licence, is the problem. Which leaves the BSD/Darwin option open to them that Mac OS X went down. There is another option, that would appeal more to MS. Buy the old source code and rights to the BeOS.
Vista is the best example that MS needs to change its thinking,
Posted by chips | March 22, 2008 2:03 PM
@chips:
I don't think it would. As a Linux user you must remember how painful it was in the beginning having such limited hardware support. MS users expect a wide range of hardware and software, it is its best selling point in my opinion.
What they are doing with Singularity is a possibility where it is a totally different product but to just make Windows do a 180 would confuse users.
Posted by Jesse | March 22, 2008 3:50 PM
Zune Marketplace better than iTunes? That's a laugh. What next? Vista better than Leopard?
Posted by asdf | March 22, 2008 8:26 PM
To comment to Jessie's post, Linux used to be a pain with drivers. Most distros out now include a great amount of drivers for hardware. I get a chuckle when installing Windows -vs- Linux and find I have to search for and install drivers for Windows, while a Linux install just works mostly "Out of the Box". The last 40 installs I did with Linux, I had a complete install with all open source (and restricted) drivers already setup after installation.
I think Vista would have come out quicker if they didn't get tripped up with x64. That caused quite a delay. I used to be a Windows die hard in the early to mid 90's. Haven't used it on my own system's since I was assaulted with Windows (M)ultiple (E)rrors when it was released. In any case, it seems Microsoft has it's up's and down's. Windows 3.1 - Rocked
Windows 95 - Rocked
Windows 97 - Joke
Windows 98 - Leaked memory like a strainer.
Windows 98se - OK, a little better.
Windows ME - O.M.G. - I wont do it!
-- Bill's original FS starts --
Windows 2000/03 - Nicely done.
Window XP - Nicely done.
Windows Vista - Back to Windows 97
Looks like we have 3 years before anything good happens. If only Bill submitted his real FS to IBM and not a last minute buyout, we all would be further ahead.
Posted by John | March 23, 2008 1:14 AM
Should Microsoft Throw Away Vista?
http://advice.cio.com/laurianne_mclaughlin/should_microsoft_throw_away_vista
Quotes from the above link;
"Throw Vista away. That's what my colleagues at our fellow IDG publication InfoWorld have now argued that Microsoft should do. Give it a dignified resting place, as a stepping-stone OS, and come up with a replacement that's more sensible for enterprise IT. There is historical precedent in the consumer OS space for such a move; look at Windows ME and how it became a footnote in Microsoft history.
"Microsoft should toss Vista in the trash, as the company did with Windows Millennium eight years ago, then issue a Windows XP Second Edition (as it did with Windows 98 eight years ago) that capitalizes on some of Vista's key benefits. Then the company should focus on Windows 7, rather than keep trying to push Vista down unwilling customers' throats. If that's too radical, how about doing an XP Second Edition while also continuing to rework Vista?" writes InfoWorld executive editor Galen Gruman, who created a petition that 100,000 people have now signed asking Microsoft to save Windows XP.
Bold ideas. But I have a feeling that some of you nodded your heads in agreement as you read them. As CIO has reported previously, many enterprise IT shops are holding out on Vista. CIOs in mid-market companies, in particular, often have aging hardware that would not play nicely with Vista, and can't afford a large-scale hardware refresh just for the OS. Also, they dont want to deal with or pay for the necessary end-user training for Vista.
Or, consider how another reader of that same blog post explained why he was waiting on Vista: "Vista upgrade is not an upgrade, but wholesale replacement. The processor and memory requirements will give every CIO pause (just to keep performance level with existing levels), not to mention researching how many peripherals have to be replaced as well due to incompatibility issues. Vista will force many CIOs to consider Linux and Mac alternatives due to cost and compatibility issues in order to stay in budget...anyone remember Windows ME... it looks downright inviting in comparison."
Posted by chips | March 23, 2008 1:38 AM
The newest cars do warn drivers about collisions...
Posted by Nick | March 23, 2008 5:22 PM
could any of you write a better operating system than micro$oft (yay i got to use the $ pun) ?
if you dont like the operating system, then dont get it?
im trying to think of an analogy but i cant lol
Posted by puppet | March 23, 2008 6:19 PM
can all you I.T. pros add me on wlm? Joe did! it would be interesting to chat :P puppet@live.com.au
Posted by puppet | March 23, 2008 6:22 PM
puppet;
Methinks you are data mining for MS, (checking ip addresses perhaps?) especially using that live dot com address in Australia. But then again, you could be trying to hit those who "add you," could be hit with a bunch of advertisements?
Posted by The Hand | March 23, 2008 6:37 PM
If MS are still a company, and manage to release a stable 7th OS, then all Vista users should be eligible for a free upgrade to this OS. Vista is too expensive, and the saying 'you get what you pay for' certainly doesn't ring true on this occasion. Especially with all the promised features that aren't present and the DRM crap, etc. The least MS could do is give a hefty discount. But all this requires them to put their hands up and admit to the public that Vista was epic fail, therefore Vista users may upgrade for free. This is probably just fantasy though.
Posted by User | March 23, 2008 7:53 PM
Andre, the usability of the Linux Desktop is far from 0. It runs stable and supports a wide range of hardware without needing 'driver cd hell.' I don't dual boot because I have a game console if I need to play games and I don't need Office 2007 as I can do what I need with open software designed for office applications. If you're not one of MSFT's lawyers, why do you find the need to defend them? Why possibly could you gain out doing so?
Posted by Bill | March 24, 2008 6:09 AM
Well you try to come up with 10 suggestions; I suggested you down load PClinuxOS and try it. You just need to run it off the CD( no install ), then go back to your list and update it from what you experienced in trying out the Linux distro CD.
Posted by Kever | March 24, 2008 6:47 AM
My decline re Windows started when I moved from 2000 to XP. The Help function is and has always been an embarrassment (most of the words you look for are simply not there, and sometimes it says "5 hits" none of which are displayed). This would be SUCH an easy fix. Windows Explorer is simply broken, and cannot sort files by name, and now in XP, it cannot FIND files. I wouldn't move to Vista if you paid me. I never read they fixed any of the problems I have had since W2K, so why would I tackle even MORE problems. All future PC's for my family will be Linux. Too bad Apple won't consider making their OS work on non-Apple machines. That baffles me. What a way to increase the success of a company, and they refuse to do it.
Posted by BrianB | March 24, 2008 9:52 AM
>>But IT organizations embraced the
>>Office 2007 UI.
They have???? I don't know a single company that has adopted Office 2007. The ridiculous "ribbon" interface is enough to cause all productivity to grind to an immediate halt.
Thank goodness I know most of the keyboard shortcuts (which, inexplicably, still work in Office 2007). Every time I have to select an operation from the "ribbon", it takes me 5 minutes to do what I could have done in Office 2003 in 2 seconds.
The whole Vista/ Office 2007 is an abortion that will go the way of Windows ME.
I don't know a single person who has actually paid to "upgrade" to Vista. They've all had it rammed down their naive throats when buying a new PC. Even "Vista capable" PCs won't run Vista without a couple of megs additional memory. To try and install it on a 2006 PC is like jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge. Survival is remotely possible, but EXTREMELY unlikely.
Posted by Back to XP | March 24, 2008 12:38 PM
I almost hate to say anything. While I do not discount the miriade of problems Vista has caused folks, I personally, have had few issues.
My new Dell XPS 1530 laptop came with Vista Home Premium. I was going to replace Vista with XP Pro, but Vista is working so well, I decided to leave in on. Also, no issues with SP1.
That said, Am I completely happy with Vista? No! It is WAY to resource intensive. There is no reason an OS needs 2 gigs of RAM to run. There is no reason for an OS trying to decide how I use my computer.
Windows 7 should be designed for the End User, not Intel or Hollywood or any other corporate partner of Microsoft.
I also agree with getting IE out of the OS. That was a mistake to begin with and is the root cause of many Windows security issues.
5 years ago I was telling folks that MS was in danger of loosing their king-of-the-hill position and many just chuckled. Folks are not laughing any more.
If MS does not address the issues with Vista, extend the market life of XP and make Windows 7 worth the wait, well let's just say I wouldn't want to be caught with too much MS stock.
Posted by Roivas | March 24, 2008 1:01 PM
Joe, you've really impressed me. You may be the only person to write a tech column who's admitted the ongoing loss of audio fidelity. Me steal music from the internet? you've got to be kidding. I'd certainly sample for interest's sake; for a more permanent medium it would have to be at least cd.
I personally see the industry hesitating before taking the plunge back into the mainframe/"dumb terminal" mode, although admittedly the terminal is a lot smarter than it was when I started. And the browser really should only be able to feed stripped content to the OS; I just personally don't know how you'd do it.
--Glenn
Posted by oregonnerd | March 24, 2008 1:10 PM
roivas wrote:
Windows 7 should be designed for the End User, not Intel or Hollywood or any other corporate partner of Microsoft.
I also agree with getting IE out of the OS. That was a mistake to begin with and is the root cause of many Windows security issues.
5 years ago I was telling folks that MS was in danger of loosing their king-of-the-hill position and many just chuckled. Folks are not laughing any more.
If MS does not address the issues with Vista, extend the market life of XP and make Windows 7 worth the wait, well let's just say I wouldn't want to be caught with too much MS stock.
----------
PRECISELY
Posted by portuno | March 24, 2008 3:36 PM
Something else M$ needs to do:
1) Stop embedding every add on product (that they copy from others to prevent anyone else from making a living,) into the OS. It gums up the OS and is not always wanted. Make them all modular and let the end user choose to install or uninstall them. The OS will run better. I never use Outlook, and rarely use IE. Even if I uninstall them, they aren't uninstalled. Stop it!
2) Stop copying stuff from others to prevent others from making a living. Would it be so bad if someone else has a successful product without you making an inferior copy and embedding it into the OS? Isn't hundreds of billions of dollars enough to go around? The energy that is going into competing with everyone on the planet could have gone into making better products. You would have been heros instead of zeros. You would have "won fair and square" instead of "down and dirty."
3) Stop "Patching" your products and FIX them! I can patch my roof with cold tar in a can. But isn't it a better idea to fix my roof by removing the damaged shingles and putting new shingles in place? That is what you should be doing with your code. Don't patch it, fix it! If 100 lines of code has 100 bugs, how can 200 lines of code have less? If a product, lets say IE7, has not one but several critical patches, fix the original product offered for download instead of requiring several separate updates and reboots. So instead of offering a product with flaws, then offering critical updates separately, you could simply and proudly offer the fixed version for download.
4) Stop making things look pretty, and pretty slow! If I want something pretty that doesn't move, I will buy a painting. When I shell out $$ for a brand new PC, I want new PC performance, not something that is pretty slow! Don't turn on every imaginable feature and bring a new PC to its virtual knees. Make it lean and fast. If individual users choose to use those resources turning on pretty visual effects, that is on them. And please stop making it look like cartoons or fisher price toys. If I want something from PlaySchool, I know where the toy store is.
5) Instead of making an OS with barely any improvements, but a whole new interface, make a whole new OS with the same old interface. We already know how to use it and it is functional. Vista created a learning curve without any real rewards. You should have offered real rewards without any new learning curve.
6) Lose the "Committee Method" of software development and start developing good software. M$ has gotten so big and fat, it can only be compared to a fat cow who repeatedly steps on her own udders. (Not a pretty sight. Very bad visual! I need to floss my synapses!) If a piece of code took X man/hours to write, but has 2X, 4X, or X squared number of committee hours invested, well that should be a big red flag to someone at M$. Too many chiefs, (and every one is a "yes" man,) and not enough Indians. (For the politically correct, Native Americans. Apparently, also the only Americans who knew how to run the place, but that is another rant.)
I like to rant about M$. Actually, I like to rant about M$ a lot! However, I am saying this sincerely. Stop driving your customers away with greed and arrogance! Just like President Bush and the USA have become the poster children for terrorist recruitment world wide, Steve Balmer and M$ have become the poster children for switching to other platforms. The Mac thanks you, and the Linux thanks you. Whether you want to believe me or not, you are hurting yourself. But not only yourself. Unfortunately, you are hurting others as well. Get off of your clouds and start listening to your customers while you still have them. Even the mighty Microsoft can fall.
Michael Lashinsky
(They won't listen. They never listen. They are not listening now. That is why I am still test driving Linux distros, and unlike Windows, they are improving at a phenomenal pace!)
Posted by mikelinpa | March 24, 2008 10:15 PM
I work for a 7 years old software company with 3 developers and an anual income of less than $500K.
Every now and then we identify flaws in our code and dedicate time and money (that we don't have any to spare) to improve it, by making the SAME code from a previous version of our software SMALLER and FASTER.
The Linux kernel gets an update nearly once a month, and it's virtually garanteed to be an improvement over the previous version, and the guys do that ONLY to make it a better product, more compatible and acceptable by the zillions of different hadware out there, not to make profit on it.
Now, what I can't understand is why can't a company that had 10,000 developers writting Vista, have a small team (let's say 300 developers) and a few million dollars (that they make in a few hours) dedicated to improve EXISTING code, by making it smaller, or faster, or at least more compatible with existing software/hardware?
The industry and the consumers had enough of arm twisting.
MS better start realising it.
Posted by Axp | March 25, 2008 12:04 PM
I have to agree that things have gotten out of hand with Vista. I'm getting tired of buying the latest, greatest hardware only to have MSOFT suck up all the speed and memory. For an OS! They really need to sit down and fix this. A New OS should be faster, and not get in my way. Period. Users run applications and MSOFT should remember that.
Posted by SJP | March 25, 2008 3:22 PM
Number 6 is where Microsoft will fail in this new vision of yours for Windows 7. Microsoft has a love of money and power.
Microsoft as a company is used to being able to bully other companies and demand excessive fees. It will do the same with Windows 7 as it has always done.
Mini-Microsoft who wants to be nice, share it's toys and play the game the way it should be played, is just too small to get it's way with big brother Microsoft who crafted the Vista EULA in such a way that it could legally go snooping around your PC. And of course you must give big brother Microsoft permission to do this otherwise you can't use Windows Vista. It's part of the EULA remember.
Posted by aikiwolfie | March 25, 2008 5:08 PM
@puppet
"could any of you write a better operating system than micro$oft (yay i got to use the $ pun) ?"
they did. its called Linux... you should check it out sometime.
Posted by asdf | March 25, 2008 5:45 PM
Sorry, but I've got to set the record straight on CD vs Vinyl. Author, you are correct in the sense that digital recordings use a finite number of values to represent a waveform. Keep in mind, though, a CD is sampled at 44,100 time a second -- this number being as such to accommodate a frequency response of up to 20khz, offering fidelity (in the scientific sense of the term) far greater than what is physically possible with a vinyl record.
In addition to offering increased frequency response (fidelity), digital audio also offers a dramatically increased dynamic range (tape-avg:76dB digital-CD:96dB).
Digital is also not subject to play damage. As long as the user keeps the disc in reasonable condition, it will play back exactly what was recorded on it every time. Vinyl records, on the other hand, are slowly scraped away with every play, and quickly accumulate scratches simply play being played -- which results in static noises upon playback.
I would be extremely careful using that as an anchor in a statement about new technology being regressive. Quite the contrary, CDs were an unbelievable advancement in music distribution and listener quality.
--Justin
-B.S. in Audio Engineering, Jacobs School of Music
Posted by Justin | March 25, 2008 10:09 PM
The problem with Vista (aside from speed) is that it broke too much of XP without providing any immediate benefits.
1. Why didn't Vista have an XP/2000/W98/Linux -compatible networking option (using NTLMv1) as a non-recommended user-selectible option, in addition to the more secure NTLMv2. This omission meant that the first Vista PC broke all its networked peers. Yes, I know you could do this with a Registry change, but that's not all that simple, if even if you knew how.
2. The XP Start Menu, etc. worked very similarly to W2K Start Menu. Users of either knew how to use both. Vista threw that knowledge away, without any offseting benefits.
Windows 7 needs to operate more on XP/W2K compatibility (at the user level) than Vista compatibility (or be skinnable to do both). Otherwise, it becomes as easy to shift users to either Mac or Linux from any version of Windows.
Posted by Wm Franklin | March 26, 2008 11:30 AM
Justin :
Sorry, but I've got to set the record straight on CD vs Vinyl. Author, you are correct in the sense that digital recordings use a finite number of values to represent a waveform. Keep in mind, though, a CD is sampled at 44,100 time a second -- this number being as such to accommodate a frequency response of up to 20khz, offering fidelity (in the scientific sense of the term) far greater than what is physically possible with a vinyl record.
In addition to offering increased frequency response (fidelity), digital audio also offers a dramatically increased dynamic range (tape-avg:76dB digital-CD:96dB).
Digital is also not subject to play damage. As long as the user keeps the disc in reasonable condition, it will play back exactly what was recorded on it every time. Vinyl records, on the other hand, are slowly scraped away with every play, and quickly accumulate scratches simply play being played -- which results in static noises upon playback.
I would be extremely careful using that as an anchor in a statement about new technology being regressive. Quite the contrary, CDs were an unbelievable advancement in music distribution and listener quality.
--Justin
-B.S. in Audio Engineering, Jacobs School of Music
Posted by Justin | March 25, 2008 10:09 PM
Gotta laugh
Even has a bullshit in audio engineering
Posted by Ha Ha | March 26, 2008 11:40 AM
XP and Vista are the reasons I still use 98SE. Screw the bells, whistles and eye-candy. Once a week, I hear, "But you can't do (WHATEVER) in 98SE!", and proceed to watch their jaws drop when I demonstrate that, in fact, you most certainly can.
Oh, and it's QUITE secure with the proper changes.
As long as Microsoft is more worried about bundling unwanted crap and *malware* into its increasingly corpulent products, and the Linux pinheads offer "solutions" like ndiswrapper, I'll KEEP using 98SE.
But, gosh, I guess I won't be COOL and NEW!! Then again, one wouldn't HAVE to be, if one learned how to OPERATE one's computer.
Posted by Crotche T. Oldman | March 27, 2008 10:07 AM
Ha,ha: what was your point? or was it only some sort-kind- of hidden complex?
Posted by Marco | March 27, 2008 12:00 PM
Vinyl better than CD? Come on Joe, what kind of engineer are you? Are you even an engineer? Because this kind of talk is simply nonsense, CD is *far* better than LP or any other analog medium available to the general public. Most people don't understand that LP could never, ever equal the sound of a CD because of the way LP's are made. An LP is a 4 or 5 generation copy of an analog tape on a physically imperfect medium and the sound quality is far removed from the original master tape. Most CD's, however, are direct digital descendants of the original master tape and reproduce all of it's splendor to (almost) the last drop. People who believe that vinyl is better than CD's are delusional and are simply kidding themselves.
Posted by Olaf | March 27, 2008 3:33 PM
I've been using Vista since it was released, both at home and at work. With the exception of a few application incompatibilities, my work machine has functioned flawlessly. My home machine has been a rougher experience, but became easier over time as vendors improved their drivers. With SP1, which I've been running for over a month now thanks to my MSDN subscription, both machines have become rock-solid stable. I use an XP machine today, and I go batty with all the little things that aren't there.
Long and short of it is, I think a lot of people are getting their jollies ragging on MSFT. The OS wasn't released as a paragon of perfection by any means (neither was XP, if you recall), but it's certainly not the embarrassment that the MSFT-haters love to paint it as. It seems irresistibly chic to be biased against Microsoft.
It's been a learning curve for MSFT over the last few years. If they've learned the lessons well, then they'll recover from the negative effects of Vista - but they didn't get to where they are by being stupid. Time will tell.
Posted by Mike | March 28, 2008 4:07 PM
OK.. I have to chime in despite the fact that this side discussion is burying the lead...
Vinyl recordings can and often do surpass CD's for one simple reason. ANYTIME you take an analog signal and convert it to digital, you have loss.
Analog recordings capture the entire wave, while digital recordings take snapshots (samples) in given intervals. The less time between intervals (higher sample rate) the harder it is for you hear the loss (distortion). And that's not even getting into the way bit-rate (or depth) truely affects the dynamic range.
For more information (much more) google the following terms:
Pulse Amplitude Modulation
Nyquist Theorem
aliasing
quantization
etc....
The truth is that ANY CD system will surpass the AVERAGE vinyl recording. But to say that Vinyl is inherently inferior shows a lack of understanding of the limitations of digital conversion of what appears in nature as analog!
OH... PS... Vista sucks....
Posted by Allengator | April 1, 2008 2:53 PM
why does Joe Wilcox give recommendations to assholes (Microsoft) for free?
Posted by stranger | April 9, 2008 9:40 AM