J
jim
The very fact that some sites are grabbing on straws to defend vista and
some users are trying very hard to find reasons why someone needs vista over
XP just shows that something is missing....
what is missing?
innovation!
"Some people see things like they are and say why, I dream things that never
were and say why not."
The above phrase you may know that J.F.Kennedy has said... however it was
originated by George Bernard Shaw...
Most people are in the "why" category
I am in the "why not" category
Vista fanboys are in the "I eat whatever MS feeds me and it goes directly to
my stomach without any processing from my brain"
Now I clearly see that vista is not a milestone as they wanted longhorn to
be, but a stepping stone...
a needed one no doubt, because the pc market was stagnating...
but its only a small step, not a leap..... not a leap we COULD have with
today's technology and brilliant minds.
So what is really missing? What is missing is the strong visionaries. People
who can dream things that never were and say why not....
people who can take what is all around and exist already... and from that
create something new... so advanced, that there would be
no question about if "vista is better than xp".....
I am sure that if a product was tremendously good... almost everyone would
gladly switch...
Now here is the problem... when a person asks such questions you immediately
try to imagine an alternative to windows,
and what comes into mind? Linux and MacOS. Unfortunately none of those 2
solutions are better! So you say Windows MUST be
the best we can do... Why is Linux not better than windows? (im talking
about the desktop pc, not servers)
Lack of drivers Lack of commercial software that can run, problems of
complexity for the simple user.
What problems does Macs have? They have a "closed" system, they want to make
all the hardware and software,
they are playing alone, and thus they are powerless. Can the Linux and Macs
change? They can if they put their heads to it...
But also something new can come up that will be different... perhaps some
version of Linux that at last gets its act correctly?
So since the competition for windows is so weak, why would MS need to make
super duper improvements? especially if they have
no real visionaries that have the power in their structure to influence?
Perhaps we want something from Microsoft that it cannot give? Perhaps it has
nothing more to give to the world?
Perhaps a new generation of developers must be bold enough do things in a
fresh and more human way?
MS played a significant role indeed.... it set the foundation for everyone
to play... but as a monopoly it wants to control and dominate,
and that can be a "retarding" effect on innovation.
What will happen? If MS does not come up with something significantly better
in the next 2 years others will jump in.
So I guess (and my prediction is) that MS cannot offer what has to be done
for the world, because of its "huge monopoly nature".
The new breakthroughs will come from small groups of people.... then
perhaps (like history has shown) MS will copy
those ideas and make their own versions... unless ....................... (I
will let you fill in the dots)
Now let me contradict myself... and let me say this: there is a possibility
that people DONT want radical changes and fast improvements!
They want incremental small steps that they are familiar with (see XP >
Vista).
If this is the case then MS is doing it on purpose... but I shiver at this
thought..... are people so inflexible in reality?
I know that no one had a cellphone some years ago... that not many people
used the internet....and no one had mp3 players!
I see that people welcome a fast paced change....IF it is towards the
better.... am I wrong?
I am not sure! You tell me......
some users are trying very hard to find reasons why someone needs vista over
XP just shows that something is missing....
what is missing?
innovation!
"Some people see things like they are and say why, I dream things that never
were and say why not."
The above phrase you may know that J.F.Kennedy has said... however it was
originated by George Bernard Shaw...
Most people are in the "why" category
I am in the "why not" category
Vista fanboys are in the "I eat whatever MS feeds me and it goes directly to
my stomach without any processing from my brain"
Now I clearly see that vista is not a milestone as they wanted longhorn to
be, but a stepping stone...
a needed one no doubt, because the pc market was stagnating...
but its only a small step, not a leap..... not a leap we COULD have with
today's technology and brilliant minds.
So what is really missing? What is missing is the strong visionaries. People
who can dream things that never were and say why not....
people who can take what is all around and exist already... and from that
create something new... so advanced, that there would be
no question about if "vista is better than xp".....
I am sure that if a product was tremendously good... almost everyone would
gladly switch...
Now here is the problem... when a person asks such questions you immediately
try to imagine an alternative to windows,
and what comes into mind? Linux and MacOS. Unfortunately none of those 2
solutions are better! So you say Windows MUST be
the best we can do... Why is Linux not better than windows? (im talking
about the desktop pc, not servers)
Lack of drivers Lack of commercial software that can run, problems of
complexity for the simple user.
What problems does Macs have? They have a "closed" system, they want to make
all the hardware and software,
they are playing alone, and thus they are powerless. Can the Linux and Macs
change? They can if they put their heads to it...
But also something new can come up that will be different... perhaps some
version of Linux that at last gets its act correctly?
So since the competition for windows is so weak, why would MS need to make
super duper improvements? especially if they have
no real visionaries that have the power in their structure to influence?
Perhaps we want something from Microsoft that it cannot give? Perhaps it has
nothing more to give to the world?
Perhaps a new generation of developers must be bold enough do things in a
fresh and more human way?
MS played a significant role indeed.... it set the foundation for everyone
to play... but as a monopoly it wants to control and dominate,
and that can be a "retarding" effect on innovation.
What will happen? If MS does not come up with something significantly better
in the next 2 years others will jump in.
So I guess (and my prediction is) that MS cannot offer what has to be done
for the world, because of its "huge monopoly nature".
The new breakthroughs will come from small groups of people.... then
perhaps (like history has shown) MS will copy
those ideas and make their own versions... unless ....................... (I
will let you fill in the dots)
Now let me contradict myself... and let me say this: there is a possibility
that people DONT want radical changes and fast improvements!
They want incremental small steps that they are familiar with (see XP >
Vista).
If this is the case then MS is doing it on purpose... but I shiver at this
thought..... are people so inflexible in reality?
I know that no one had a cellphone some years ago... that not many people
used the internet....and no one had mp3 players!
I see that people welcome a fast paced change....IF it is towards the
better.... am I wrong?
I am not sure! You tell me......
