What Is the Vista Experience?
|
Mike Nash and I agree on one thing—the Windows Vista experience is getting better. But when will it be good enough? |
I spoke to Nash, corporate vice president of Windows product management, for about 45 minutes earlier this afternoon. That's unprecedented access to an executive at his level—at least for a phone interview. Nash is doing a press junket right now, presumably ahead of the holiday sales season and next year's release of Windows Vista Service Pack 1.
Nash wasn't doing all the talking. He framed the conversation as a "dialogue," and he clearly was doing lots of listening. Smart. He should want to know what bloggers, journalists and other influencers are thinking about Windows Vista. Right now, Vista has kind of a bad rap, and Microsoft needs to get influencers and customers beyond it.
"The No. 1 thing you need to do is change the experience," Nash said. "The experience is better," he said, referring to Vista today. "But how do you get people to go back and see that the experience has changed?" It's the right question to ask.
As I explained in May, Vista got out ahead of Microsoft partners, which simply weren't ready with compatible applications or adequate hardware drivers.
Ch-ch-ch-cha-a-anges
Nash was very upfront about the problems with the Vista experience, which in August I described as "broken." The reasons are well-known, but his acknowledging them means something.
"We knew we had hardcore architectural things to do," Nash said about Windows Vista. "We knew that XP SP2 was an improvement, but it wasn't sufficient. More architectural changes, particularly around security, came in Vista." But they came with a price.
"We knew it was going to cause application compatibility problems," he continued. Nash said that Microsoft had to weigh security changes, such as user privileges, against backward compatibility concerns. "What we have with Vista is a balance with the important things around security and the importance of compatibility."
I can't agree—and probably should have told Nash so. It has been my longstanding opinion that Microsoft should have made even more architectural changes, essentially re-engineer the operating system and use virtualization to provide backward compatibility. Microsoft has a worst-of-both-worlds situation, where there is a huge compatibility hit without a real transformation of Windows into a post-Internet operating system.
Apple successfully launched Mac OS X as a new architecture while providing a separate, compatibility mode for Mac OS 8.x and 9.x applications. Microsoft has even better tools than Apple for rearchitecting for the future while providing a lifeline to the past.
The architectural changes, particularly around security, have created all kinds of problems, from customer and developer frustration with application incompatibility to image problems for Windows Vista. Microsoft has paid a high price for security improvements.
Other architectural changes caused trouble, too, such as changes to what has access to the kernel. For example, Nash said that the decision to move printing out of kernel mode caused many of the hardware driver problems. From a security perspective, Microsoft made the right call.
No question, application and hardware driver support are much better today than they were 10 months ago—even since summer. It was only August that I griped about "broken Windows." Just three months later, Vista is prime time enough for me.
Nash asked me about my primary operating system. It's Vista. But if he asked in August, I might have said Mac OS X. I switched regularly between the two operating systems until just recently. No longer. It's Vista all the way.
Vista Refinements
Nash acknowledged that Microsoft has used Windows Update as a means for refining Vista and ensuring that users get compatible hardware drivers. He seemed satisfied that Windows Update would be sufficient for getting out updates, but acknowledged that "Service Pack 1 is a milestone for some customers."
Last week, I spoke with Michael Cherry, Directions on Microsoft's lead analyst for desktop and mobile, about Windows Update. I asked him about Microsoft using the update mechanism to refine the operating system.
"I believe there is a contingency of people at Microsoft that believe service packs are no longer necessary because Windows Update lets them update whenever anything's done," he said. But "there's a fundamental flaw in Windows Update in that there comes a point where there are so many updates it's unmanageable."
Cherry used XP as example. "It has to do a bunch of updates before it can even update itself," and "there is a sequencing problem with some of these updates" to Windows Update.
While Cherry makes a legitimate argument, Microsoft's Vista results are rebuttal. In my testing, the user experience using an updated Vista version is significantly better than the gold code. Windows Vista is much better now than it was 10 months ago. Microsoft has done something right with Windows Update.
The improved experience isn't just about the bits Microsoft distributes via the Internet. Many devices now ship with Vista drivers on CDs. Nash spoke about the differences in Vista buying experiences for a niece and nephew, for laptops purchased right after the operating system's launch and also a few weeks ago. For the newer laptop, there was more memory, more features and better Vista experience right out of the box.
"Most people are going to have most of the drivers supported," Nash said.
Nash is crazy like me. He goes to computer and electronics stores and shops the shoppers. He watches them buy stuff and talks to them about the products. "They don't know who I am," he said—and I imagined a smile on the other end of the telephone. It's a good practice to watch shoppers.
Seventh Heaven
I asked Nash about Vista's successor, code-named "Windows 7." I wanted to know if Microsoft had made all the big architectural changes with Vista.
"Windows Vista certainly did focus on things we needed to step back and take a look at," he said. "I'm comfortable with the investment that we made."
But he wouldn't say how much change the investment in Windows 7 might warrant. I can't fault him for dodging a little. Windows 7 is two or more years from release, with a new leadership team responsible for the work. It's too early for him to publicly talk about Windows 7, particularly when so few businesses have even deployed Vista.
Nash also diplomatically dodged my question about one of my pet peeves: integrated graphics on newer computers. It's my contention that underpowered integrated graphics accelerators diminish the Windows experience.
"The move toward integrated—we're seeing that in the laptop space for sure," he said. But Nash cautiously answered about there being a problem. "It's an area where we have to work with the ecosystem to make sure that customers get the right system for their needs."
I never really expected Nash to diss his OEMs, but I had to ask. If consumers have a bad Vista experience because of underpowered hardware, Microsoft gets the blame. But no Microsoft exec is going to blame the OEMs, even when they're the problem.
My other pet peeve is marketing, and I didn't hear enough of what I wanted from Nash. I told him that I liked the "WOW" ads and that Microsoft should have continued heavy Vista marketing and also the Flip 3D credits for TV shows like "Lost." For the latter, there is almost a subliminal connection, I told Nash. Someone sees the Flip 3D on "Lost" and then has an "ah ha" moment seeing the feature in Vista on a store shelf. More importantly, Microsoft might pick up some good emotional feeling about the TV show extended to the Vista PC.
Nash asked if I had seen the Jerry Seinfeld HP "The Computer Is Personal Again" ads and what I thought of them. I do like them; they're clever. But I mentioned that some of my colleagues called the Jerry Seinfeld commercial silly. Nash said to expect more co-branded ads and some online advertising. But he had no big, bold, brash Windows Vista ad campaign to discuss.
Will co-branded ads be enough? The HP ads are a great start. Besides the commercial, people can go online to get Jerry Seinfeld ring tones and Vista gadgets. Personalities do sell products. Seinfeld certainly is a personality, and he's looking for tie-ins to his new movie. But why is there no joke about him starring in a "Bee Movie," as in "B movie"?
Related Posts:
- Vista Adoption Will Continue at Slow Pace, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 14, 2007
- Vista's Consumer Rocket Ride to the Enterprise, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 8, 2007
- Vista: One Year Later, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 8, 2007
- Windows Vista Ultimate: Plus or Minus, Microsoft Watch, Sept. 26, 2007
- What Windows Vista Does for Me, Microsoft Watch, Sept. 14, 2007
- Yes, Virginia, There Is a Vista SP1, Microsoft Watch, Aug. 29, 2007
- Don't Have a WOW, Man, Microsoft Watch, Aug. 28, 2007
- Broken Windows, Microsoft Watch, Aug. 9, 2007
- Microsoft: No Rush to Vista SP1, Microsoft Watch, July 19, 2007
- The Vista Contradiction, Microsoft Watch, June 4, 2007
- How Does Windows Vista Rate?, Microsoft Watch, May 20, 2007
- Is Vista One Step Ahead?, Microsoft Watch, May 16, 2007
- I Shacked Up with Windows Vista, Microsoft Watch, May 10, 2007
Comments (27)
"It has been my longstanding opinion that Microsoft should have made even more architectural changes, essentially re-engineer the operating system, and use virtualization to provide backward compatibility. Microsoft has a worst of both worlds situation, where there is a huge compatibility hit without a real transformation of Windows into a post-Internet operating system."
Well said, and imo accurate.
Posted by Paul | November 14, 2007 9:22 PM
" Mike Nash and I agree on one thing—the Windows Vista experience is getting better" .
I don't believe this comment comes from ex-IT analyst and a current IT columnist. Of course , the more you use a product, the more experinces and short-cut you will gain . It is just like an experinced typist who can type while engage on the phone. It was happened to Win95, Win98 , Win NT WKs , Windows 200o Pro , Windows XP and current Windows Vista.
There is no big fuss about it .
Then why all the while you bash on Vista ? Just give yourself sometime to adjust it
Yoy were wrong and I hope you are right now
Posted by Marty | November 14, 2007 11:43 PM
I keep thinking about General Motors and how over the years, especially in the 70s and 80s bad dealers and bad cars destroyed their customer base. Their most recent 39 billion dollar loss is as much "coming home to roost" as it is the bad economy.
"For G.M., Better Cars, Worse Sales" New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/business/14auto.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Yes, my perception is, Vista is better. It's faster and nicer to work with. But is Microsoft going to overcome their rough beginning with Vista in time to recover from the initial damage they've done to themselves?
The gist of the Times article was, yes, GM made some bad products and mistreated its customers years ago, and now that their cars are so much better people -still- aren't coming back into the showrooms. It will take years for GM to get people back, if at all, admits one GM exec.
If he is wise, Mr. Nash may already have an idea that Microsft must really fix Vista up, and do it quick, or people simply will not come back. MS may be the new GM.
Posted by mgo | November 15, 2007 4:37 AM
different business the same result
-------
Warner Music Boss: We Were Wrong
"We used to fool ourselves…We used to think our content was perfect just exactly as it was. We expected our business would remain blissfully unaffected even as the world of interactivity, constant connection and file sharing was exploding. And of course we were wrong. How were we wrong? By standing still or moving at a glacial pace, we inadvertently went to war with consumers by denying them what they wanted and could otherwise find and as a result of course consumers won."
www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/14/warner-music-boss-we-were-wrong/
--------------
"We inadvertently went to war with consumers by denying them"....Yes MS you are in War
against us.
Posted by Marco | November 15, 2007 7:32 AM
One can't undo first impressions. Even Microsoft.
Every time I even see so much as a screenshot of the Aero desktop interface I'm reminded of my past frustrations in trying to use it. I've since bought a Mac and happily left the Microsoft world behind.
Vista SP1 is irrelevant as it's no more than the sum of the commonly available hotfixes that are available today. They are band-aids that, while helpful, go nowhere near where the OS needs to be to honestly claim it as an improvement in speed or reliability over XP.
Posted by Fortune IT | November 15, 2007 8:55 AM
If they advertize Flip 3d which is supposed to represent the Vista operating why sell Basic which does not include vista? Consumers will equate the new Aero interface with vista, Not including it in Basic seems a bit of a mistake.
Posted by Ex Windowsuser | November 15, 2007 9:50 AM
After so many years in development, all Micrp$oft can show is a Vista that is still a virus magnet. They botched an opportunity to re-engineer the whole OS and put in some real, built-in security. Right now, Vista security has all the characteristics of a bolt-on, band-aid solution, and it's laughable.
That's what happens when the company's priority is engaging in FUD instead of innovation. But I guess you can't blame the M$ developers. They take their corporate culture from the bosses who run the company -- bosses who can only think of how to bring competitors down instead of building better products.
Will Windows 7 ber any better? Not if you have people like Bill and Ballmer still on top. Bill Gates is officially gone, but if he's still pulling the strings in the background, well, expect more of the same garbage.
Posted by Maddog | November 15, 2007 11:35 AM
Microsoft's persistence on application compatibility is also one of it's strengths. I have application's dated 20 years old that can still run on windows natively. With how many OS can you do that?
Posted by evan | November 15, 2007 2:57 PM
"It has been my longstanding opinion that Microsoft should have made even more architectural changes, essentially re-engineer the operating system, and use virtualization to provide backward compatibility. Microsoft has a worst of both worlds situation, where there is a huge compatibility hit without a real transformation of Windows into a post-Internet operating system."
Yes I think you're right, but I don't think the level of virtualization was ready then, or even now.
Posted by Jeremy | November 15, 2007 3:19 PM
evan wrote: Microsoft's persistence on application compatibility is also one of it's strengths. I have application's dated 20 years old that can still run on windows natively. With how many OS can you do that?
Unix, BSD, and Linux (but it's not 20 years old yet) can do that.
Posted by Maddog | November 16, 2007 3:42 AM
"Unix, BSD, and Linux (but it's not 20 years old yet) can do that."
Add one more to the list. I'm running an app right now, Deneba's Canvas V3.5, that dates to 1987. It was written for Mac OS7 and it's running just fine under OS X.4.
Running 20-year old apps is probably not something we should demand from our OS vendors. But claiming that capability is exclusive to Windows is obviously not correct.
The key to backward compatibility is VMs running under a modern OS architecture. Microsoft bought premiere VM technologies when it acquired Connectix some years ago. Why haven't those technologies surfaced in any Microsoft products? Maybe the vaunted coders in Redmond are not up to the task? Or are Ballmer and Gates afraid that an effective VM play will sound the death knell for their two-decade monopoly?
Posted by Rick | November 16, 2007 12:02 PM
VM technologies have not surfaced?Are you kidding me? Have you ever head about viridian, Virtual PC etc ?
The key to what I said was about compatibility is "natively". Apple new OS uses VM to accomplish that...Yes Unix BSD can still run old apps. But how much Unix has changed as an OS the last decade?
Posted by evan | November 16, 2007 2:21 PM
"Have you ever head about viridian, Virtual PC etc ?"
Yes, I know about those. They are child's play compared to the stuff Connectix had in its lab when MSFT swooped in and bought them out. Either MSFT doesn't understand what they bought, or they are intentionally burying the technologies to keep anyone else from using them.
Posted by Rick | November 16, 2007 4:35 PM
Quote:
" Maddog :
evan wrote: Microsoft's persistence on application compatibility is also one of it's strengths. I have application's dated 20 years old that can still run on windows natively. With how many OS can you do that?
Unix, BSD, and Linux (but it's not 20 years old yet) can do that."
----------------------------------------------------
Funny isn't it, as the apps he is talking here are very very old DOS apps and games. Even in Linux, using the very very good Dosbox app, I can run more Dos programs and games (with sound) than I can with XP or (forget) Vi$ta. Unless, of course, you install Dosbox for those systems, then it would be about even, except for Vi$ta, which will still run less of them. So I find no logic in Evans original statement.
Posted by chips | November 16, 2007 6:24 PM
There is no big fuss about it .
Then why all the while you bash on Vista ? Just give yourself sometime to adjust it
Yoy were wrong and I hope you are right now
Posted by seo yarışması | November 17, 2007 3:05 PM
Having evaluated Windows Vista while it was in beta, then in RC, finally when it was sold and patched some, I decided that time was up: I needed to upgrade my shop's Windows 2000 systems to something better, as I had had enough managing antivirus, antispyware, user account settings and firewall on each machine independantly.
I installed Linux; Wine provides compatibility with those recent Windows apps we still need, dosbox runs those legacy DOS apps the boss insists on keeping, and a virtual machine with XP sp2 handles whatever is left.
Once there, all we need to do is progressively ween our users off of some apps to use Free equivalents, and little by little we'll get our upgraded systems: no cost, top-notch security, high grade remote control, high uptime, low hardware costs - and, it has started aready, better productivity: those Free softwares are more logically organized than paid for software (I mean, why click 'start' to shut down a machine?)
With Vista, it soon became evident that we would need to replace all our hardware to merely run the file browser and the web browser, while Linux allows our current hardware to do 3D compositing on 15 apps opened simultaneously without breaking a sweat.
Posted by Mitch 74 | November 22, 2007 6:21 PM
couple limited editions, and even a new SKU, it looks like Microsoft is finally shipping "Falcon"-equipped Xbox 360s with 65nm CPUs.
Posted by travesti | March 6, 2008 5:56 PM
editions, and even a new SKU, it looks like Microsoft is finally shipping "Falcon"-equipped Xbox 360s with 65nm CPUs.
Posted by transseksuel | March 6, 2008 10:17 PM
it looks like Microsoft is finally shipping "Falcon"-equipped Xbox 360s with 65nm CPUs.
Posted by travesti | March 6, 2008 10:18 PM
If they advertize Flip 3d which is supposed to represent the Vista operating why sell Basic which does not include vista? Consumers will equate the new Aero interface with vista, Not including it in Basic seems a bit of a mistake.
Posted by Sohbet | March 15, 2008 10:40 AM
There is no big fuss about it .
Then why all the while you bash on Vista ? Just give yourself sometime to adjust it
Posted by Chat | March 15, 2008 10:44 AM
"Most people are going to have most of the drivers supported," Nash said.
Posted by Chat | March 15, 2008 10:46 AM
thanks
Posted by koltuk yıkama | July 22, 2008 2:47 AM
thanks
Posted by halı yıkama | July 22, 2008 2:49 AM
thanks
Posted by koltuk yıkama | July 22, 2008 2:58 AM
thanks
Posted by halı yıkama | July 22, 2008 3:00 AM
thanks
Posted by iğneli epilasyon | July 22, 2008 3:01 AM