Vista is not a failure. The MS marketing team is...


F

fb

Here are some interesting comments on that subject:

"Article (20 things Windows 7 MUST include) shows how much of a failure
Microsoft's Marketing team is, not how Vista failed.

For example, although there are tiny CPU scheduler changes in Vista, the
big changes things like a GPU scheduler, and I if the author of the
article doesn't even know which or what the difference is, show how sad
the level of understanding of Vista is.

Additionally, the article lacks any technical credibility, as it argues
for Windows 7 to be more modular, but then goes to use Linux as an
example of a good thing. Linux is the opposite of Modular when you look
at what Linux is specifically, as the kernel architecture is not only
not-modular, but spaghetti'ed together, to the point that a scheduling
lock change has disrupted the whole kernel development process.

Linux is NOT a modular OS. The UNIX framework and the 'separation' of
the OS layers is modular, but has NOTHING to do with Linux. Windows, to
Window Manager, to core OS and kernel levels are separate because Linux
doesn't strive to be a GUI or provide an upper level OS environment. In
this understanding, DOS was also very 'modular', as it separated the
Window Environment (Win3.x) as well. (This type of misunderstanding is
where an editor would normally go, ouch, this article needs to be
reviewed by a technical writer before we post it.)


One thing I have argued about Vista all along is a two fold problem.
First the MS Marketing Team have little understanding what Vista does
that is good or cool, and the MS Marketing team/business side had too
much control over the versions of Vista released, and fragmented
features across versions.

For example Flip3D is NOT a feature or even that cool, is the result of
the cool technologies of a Vector composer in Vista, that is doing
things even KDE 4 or OS X can't do. Yet marketing says nothing of this,
any only talk about Flip3D as a feature.

If you look at the OS X 10.5 release, Apple listed 300 features new from
10.4. However, if MS would have done this with Vista, and been as picky
as Apple was about what little things it wanted to 'list' as features,
the list would have been 5,000-10,000 features new in Vista. Yet Apple
was able to act like 10.5 had more 'features' over the previous version
than Vista did, which is so far from true, it is plain hyperbole.

The different Vista versions, especially the Basic and difference from
Home to Ultimate was insane and stupid. Sure business doesn't want Media
Center installed on computers, but MS should have provided two versions.
Business ONLY, that had a default install that doesn't easily allow the
games etc, but are still available, and a Normal version that will allow
have a default install, and give both versions the ability to select
what features they want with a clear understanding of what they are.

So with the versions MS blew it. Additionally, because a lot of the
'cool' features were only in Business or Ultimate, MS could fight about
against Apple. Take Time Machine form OS X, Vista's previous versions in
Ultimate and Business do every that Time Machine does, easier, with
existing backups, in addition to providing the time snapshots on the
volume without moving GBs of data to the backup every hour. Microsoft
didn't leave the UI in the Home versions, because of the stupid
marketing/business teams at MS, and so Microsoft couldn't advertise it
or even shove Time Machine back at Apple, showing that it was a poor
copy of a technology already in Vista.
 
Ad

Advertisements

N

Not Me

fb said:
Here are some interesting comments on that subject:

"Article (20 things Windows 7 MUST include) shows how much of a failure
Microsoft's Marketing team is, not how Vista failed.

For example, although there are tiny CPU scheduler changes in Vista, the
big changes things like a GPU scheduler, and I if the author of the
article doesn't even know which or what the difference is, show how sad
the level of understanding of Vista is.

Additionally, the article lacks any technical credibility, as it argues
for Windows 7 to be more modular, but then goes to use Linux as an example
of a good thing. Linux is the opposite of Modular when you look at what
Linux is specifically, as the kernel architecture is not only not-modular,
but spaghetti'ed together, to the point that a scheduling lock change has
disrupted the whole kernel development process.

Linux is NOT a modular OS. The UNIX framework and the 'separation' of the
OS layers is modular, but has NOTHING to do with Linux. Windows, to Window
Manager, to core OS and kernel levels are separate because Linux doesn't
strive to be a GUI or provide an upper level OS environment. In this
understanding, DOS was also very 'modular', as it separated the Window
Environment (Win3.x) as well. (This type of misunderstanding is where an
editor would normally go, ouch, this article needs to be reviewed by a
technical writer before we post it.)


One thing I have argued about Vista all along is a two fold problem. First
the MS Marketing Team have little understanding what Vista does that is
good or cool, and the MS Marketing team/business side had too much control
over the versions of Vista released, and fragmented features across
versions.

For example Flip3D is NOT a feature or even that cool, is the result of
the cool technologies of a Vector composer in Vista, that is doing things
even KDE 4 or OS X can't do. Yet marketing says nothing of this, any only
talk about Flip3D as a feature.

If you look at the OS X 10.5 release, Apple listed 300 features new from
10.4. However, if MS would have done this with Vista, and been as picky as
Apple was about what little things it wanted to 'list' as features, the
list would have been 5,000-10,000 features new in Vista. Yet Apple was
able to act like 10.5 had more 'features' over the previous version than
Vista did, which is so far from true, it is plain hyperbole.

The different Vista versions, especially the Basic and difference from
Home to Ultimate was insane and stupid. Sure business doesn't want Media
Center installed on computers, but MS should have provided two versions.
Business ONLY, that had a default install that doesn't easily allow the
games etc, but are still available, and a Normal version that will allow
have a default install, and give both versions the ability to select what
features they want with a clear understanding of what they are.

So with the versions MS blew it. Additionally, because a lot of the 'cool'
features were only in Business or Ultimate, MS could fight about against
Apple. Take Time Machine form OS X, Vista's previous versions in Ultimate
and Business do every that Time Machine does, easier, with existing
backups, in addition to providing the time snapshots on the volume without
moving GBs of data to the backup every hour. Microsoft didn't leave the UI
in the Home versions, because of the stupid marketing/business teams at
MS, and so Microsoft couldn't advertise it or even shove Time Machine back
at Apple, showing that it was a poor copy of a technology already in
Vista.

Marketing can spew whatever they want, that doesn't change the fact that
many people sit down in front of a new machine with Vista and
say....EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, WTF did MS do to Windows!

The Edsel had a lot of new and different features too....
 
F

fb

Not said:
Marketing can spew whatever they want, that doesn't change the fact that
many people sit down in front of a new machine with Vista and
say....EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, WTF did MS do to Windows!

You mean they say..."EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, WTF did MS do to Windows *XP*,
right.
The Edsel had a lot of new and different features too....

Sorry, but this is definitely not a Ford product.
 
N

Not Me

fb said:
You mean they say..."EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, WTF did MS do to Windows *XP*,
right.

Sorry, but this is definitely not a Ford product.

You're right, Quality was definately NOT Job #1!
 
Ad

Advertisements

N

Not Me

Charles W Davis said:
I notice that Apple didn't do so well with the newest incarnation of the
iPhone!

These companies are in such a hurry to get the next big thing to markrt,
they don't take the time to properly test and implement many things.
As long as people will stand in line to get the stuff (and pay through the
nose for the privilege of being a Beta tester), it won't change.
 
F

FB

Not said:
These companies are in such a hurry to get the next big thing to markrt,
they don't take the time to properly test and implement many things.
As long as people will stand in line to get the stuff (and pay through the
nose for the privilege of being a Beta tester), it won't change.
It appears the servers were overloaded for those trying to activate.
Nothing to do with "beta testing".
 
N

Not Me

FB said:
It appears the servers were overloaded for those trying to activate.
Nothing to do with "beta testing".

They never heard that Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance?
Hmmmmmm......
 
Ad

Advertisements

Ad

Advertisements


Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top