Re: Article: 10 Things I Warned Microsoft About Windows Vista
*throats!!!
gasp
"On the Bridge!" <On@the,bridge> wrote in message
news:47de8718@newsgate.x-privat.org...
> http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/vista/10_things_i_warned_microsoft_about_windows_vista.html
>
> this is an article by Joe Wilcox
> and he states:
> "I worked as an analyst when Microsoft developed Windows Vista. Execs
> asked for my advice, and they got it. Did they listen?"
>
> But of course the vistaboys and frank king of the apes, will just
> discredit him too...
> it seems like they think that their own experience is better than US
> pros..
> yes me included... with over 25 years of computer experience, I know when
> an OS is POS.
>
> let the mud flow freely for vista!
> let the truth shine, and THEN lets decide if we should use it or not...
> not get it shoved down our throughts in the dark (not mine but the average
> user)
>
> here is the text of the article
>
>
> The imminent real release of Windows Vista Service Pack 1 is reason enough
> to broach the question. SP1 is an important milestone for an operating
> system that bloggers and other critics consistently ridicule. Oh, yeah,
> the channel and enterprises aren't exactly loving Vista either.
> These 10 things are in no particular order of importance.
> 1. Windows Vista has to be a whole lot better than Windows XP. Microsoft
> had left XP in the market for a long time. That version of Windows had
> reached a certain "good enough" threshold, in part because of the stable,
> supporting ecosystem. Vista would have to be a whole lot better to drive
> upgrades in established markets. I received assurances that Vista would
> deliver on the promise, which was later accentuated in the "Wow"
> marketing. What happened: Vista wasn't better enough.
> 2. Vista will miss the big PC upgrade cycle. A major enterprise PC refresh
> cycle started in 2004 and continued through mid-2006. In early 2006, I
> warned Microsoft executives that Vista would ship too late. What happened:
> The major upgrade cycle wound down, but computer sales remained strong
> because of consumer upgrades and a massive shift to portables. So, Vista
> missed the big hardware refresh cycle but caught another one. However, in
> part because of #1, many businesses opted for Windows XP instead of Vista
> on those shiny, new notebooks.
> 3. Windows Vista Home Basic is too basic. I strongly recommended against
> Microsoft's releasing this version at any price. Microsoft executives
> insisted that OEMs wanted a low-cost Vista version for cheap PCs. But
> Basic offered less than Windows XP Home for about the same price. I called
> it a hidden price increase. What happened: There is limited demand for
> Home Basic.
> 4. Call it Windows Basic. Vista Home Basic was so defeatured, I strongly
> encouraged Microsoft to remove the Vista name from the product. I warned
> that Basic would tarnish the broader Vista brand and that its streamlined
> features put it in a lower category. I bet a Microsoft product manager
> $100 that Windows Basic would become the default nomenclature. What
> happened: Other problems affecting every Vista version, such as
> applications and drivers incompatibilities, overshadowed Basic's weak
> feature set. Oh yeah, I owe somebody at Microsoft 100 bucks. I don't
> recall who you are, but don't feel impish about collecting.
> 5. Vista reminds too much of Windows Me. In late 2006, I had dinner with
> some Vista user interface designers. By then, I had used Vista betas for
> nearly 10 months. They heard: There are two Microsoft operating systems
> that the more I used them the less I liked them-Windows Me and Windows
> Vista. While not my intention, the comment hugely insulted the UI
> designers, because of how much Windows Me is regarded, even within
> Microsoft, as a marketing failure. What happened: Some critics have
> described Vista as Windows Me II.
> 6. One Vista version is enough. I opposed Microsoft's Vista SKU strategy
> from the first presentation and, later, after some tweaking. I explained
> that Windows isn't toothpaste. Too many versions would confuse customers,
> creating an unnecessary impediment to Vista upgrades. How could Vista be
> perceived as better enough if the buying experience was more difficult
> than XP? I strongly advocated a one-version strategy, but with
> differentiated OEM pricing depending on features used by the hardware. I
> reasoned the approach would simplify Windows purchasing while encouraging
> greater PC differentiation. What happened: The OEM market has largely
> consolidated around a single version: Vista Home Premium for consumers.
> It's all Gateway sells, for example. Many enterprises are adopting Vista
> Enterprise, which is a volume licensing-only option.
> 7. It has to be multiple SKUs or Windows Experience Index, but not both.
> WEI would confuse Vista buyers because the ratings would contradict with
> some versions. For example, Vista Ultimate could conceivably ship on a
> notebook with WEI of 3.0 (out of a possible 5.9). Customers would ask: If
> it's so ultimate, why is the rating so slow? I liked the WEI concept more
> than the SKU strategy and recommended choosing only the ratings scheme.
> What happened: WEI ratings were low the first year on notebooks, even
> those with Vista Ultimate.
> 8. Vista demands too much. From my earliest product briefings, Microsoft
> executives carted around big honking laptops-luggables-to get enough
> processing and graphics power to run early Vista builds. I was told Vista
> would need less power closer to release. Nope. I got my first Vista test
> system in February 2006. WEI: 2.0, on above-average hardware. What
> happened: OEMs shipped computers underpowered for Vista, even through
> holiday 2007. The operating system demands too much from even modestly
> older hardware.
> 9. Windows Vista Capable is a bad idea. Why could Microsoft possibly need
> two Vista logo programs? The connotations around Capable and Ready were
> either too alike or too confusing. I said that there should be one program
> for which everything truly was ready. Unfortunately, Microsoft didn't
> consult me on the logo programs, so I gave my advice after the Capable
> logo announcement. What happened: A Vista Capable class-action lawsuit
> revealed embarrassing Microsoft e-mails about Windows Vista
> decision-making processes-or lack of them.
> 10. Vista security features increase complexity, decrease usability. Oh, I
> was a loud critic of UAC (User Account Control) and Internet Explorer
> warnings. I argued that Microsoft had made Vista much harder to use than
> Windows XP. The experience would be worse for many users. Going back to
> #1, Vista had to be a lot better, not perceptually worse. What happened:
> UAC warnings hurt usability but caused more troubles; new user rights
> mechanism broke many applications.
>