Microsoft Doesn’t Want To Repeat Vista Mistakes - Will Make 7 Better
- 6
- Add a Comment
When I wrote the article about Engineering Windows 7 this week, [here] there were a few thoughts that crossed my mind after I finished the article. One comment to the article also jogged my memory about Windows Vista, in that during its development there were many issues, which forced Microsoft in changing the path they originally had set. Some of the features that Jim Allchin had first promised were taken out of the system. Most of us are familiar with the famous memo Mr. Allchin had sent to Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer stating his opinion that Windows Vista was a disaster and if it were up to him he would buy an Apple. Full memo is [here].
Now before I proceed I want to say this is not going to be a Vista is good nor a Vista is bad article. It is going to be my opinion on what Microsoft may be trying to accomplish by opening a blog site for Windows 7. I personally believe that the blog will be a great way to keep us informed on what is going on with Windows 7. It should also help to squash all [ or at least some] of the rumors that always appear when a new operating system is under development.
But there may be something else behind Microsoft’s willingness to open up the dialog for discussion for Windows 7. No matter how much Microsoft tries to convince the masses of the wonders of Vista, even using the Mojave experiment, there is a core group of users who refuse to make the switch. I don’t believe Microsoft has ever has this much dissension towards any of their previous operating systems. Most notably is the reluctance of businesses, even Intel refuses to take the Vista walk, to flock to Vista. This has to hurt Microsoft, not money wise, but ego wise. Lets face it. Microsoft has a huge ego and anyone saying that they do not love Vista, has to hurt that ego.
But underneath all of the ballyhoo about Vista, I believe Microsoft has admitted internally that Vista was not and is not the very best Microsoft could of done. This kind of reminds me of the Steven Spielberg-Harrison Ford trilogy of Indiana Jones. The first movie [Raiders Of The Lost Ark] was terrific. But film number 2 [The Temple Of Doom ] was a dude. In fact the movie was actually an embarrassment for Spielberg-Lucas-Ford who promised to do better. They eventually redeemed themselves with the third movie [The Last Crusade] which was very good.
The same appears to be what is happening with Microsoft and Vista. They can do better and Windows 7 will be their chance to prove it.
What do you think? Share your thoughts.
Comments welcome.
6 Comments
mike
August 18th, 2008
at 12:11pm
From a business standpoint, M$ screwed up with Vista in that it simply wasn’t ready for prime time and they have, for the most part, alienated the part of their business who actually makes them money–businesses.
It’s really not whether Vista is good or bad as you said–who cares at this point–it’s delivering a product that users, managers, it staff, and companies in general can trust. That simply didn’t happen with Vista.
Let’s hope this next iteration is more stable AND that Microsoft has no fear of delaying it IF they think it is not ready. I’d rather they be honest and say–”we aren’t ready” and put out a solid OS than rush to market some P.O.S. no one trusts or can rely on for day-to-day business.
I’m actually looking forward to this next OS version but only time will tell how usable it will be….
Peace…
Urban Underbrink
August 19th, 2008
at 5:09pm
If Microsoft came out with something called Windows XP Second Edition, I would probably take a chance on it. For sure I will never put Vista on any of my computers. Thank God you can still get those tiny solid state notebook computers with Windows XP installed. They also come with Linux and these things boot in less than 15 seconds! All we need now is one of those OLED 12 or 14 inch screens so it would be great for trips. Excellent battery life and wireless internet too.
bem
August 19th, 2008
at 7:46pm
For me, the worst sin Vista committed was to willy-nilly change the basic layout that had been Windows since 95. I was expecting bigger, stronger, faster. What I got was frustration from being unable to operate Windows after 25 years of learning where everything was. What purpose was served by changing the long established control panel icons and functions? Why am I denied ready access to so many different functions that I was using daily as if I were a child Wwho would break the computer?
I agree whole heartedly with Urban: Give me XP on steroids and I might actually buy a copy instead of waiting for my next computer, something I would never do with Vista as it stands.
While you’re at it, could somebody put the browser buttons back where they belong on the next version of IE? I can never find the refresh button when I need it. Change for change’s sake improves nothing.
Roelof
August 21st, 2008
at 4:50pm
The Vista fiasco reminds me of the saying ‘if it ain´t broken, don´t fix it’. In other words, from a consumer’s standpoint, there was (and is) nothing wrong with XP. So of course nobody felt the need to switch over.
A whopping 75 to 80 percent of the visitors on my sites is still using XP. That will teach Microsoft not to force feed us a new OS. They should listen to their customers and give them what they want, not shove a new OS down their throats in a blatant attempt to make more bucks.
Yes, maybe some technical adaptions or innovations were necessary. An XP Second Edition, as suggested in another comment, would have been the perfect way to realise that. XP has built an excellent reputation for itself and an SE would only have strengthened the consumer’s trust.
Mike Darnell
October 26th, 2008
at 4:57pm
Well you might be right Ron. I have a Vista machine and it’s not bad or good in my opinion. That being said; it’s clear that the marketing arm of Microsoft screwed up. The only thing I hate is that Vista tries to ‘think’ for me. I’m an experienced power user, and I know what I’m doing (at least somewhat better than any heuristic algorithm does anyway). If you ask me I think that the best thing they could do would be to re-release the standard Windows XP Pro as ‘Classic’ edition… If they want to sell a new OS then those who -want- one, need to be attracted to the new features of the system by what it can do better, we should not be forced to make the change without any rational benefit or reasonable justification.
Any time they mess with the user Interface it results in a period of lost productivity for most business environments, as the users assimilate it and adapt to the change. this represents Billions of dollars loss to the business community as a whole - what a surprise they were reluctant to ’suck it up’ and just fork over -more- money for a new product with no significant improvement over an existing mature product.
I understand that Microsoft’s own business model depends on the sale of ‘new’ products but maybe they will have to change and refocus on making numerous variations on XP with a specific targeted demographic…
XP SE/Classic (AKA XP PRO or Home)
XP GE (AKA Gaming Edition)
XP BE (Business Edition)
XP DE (Developers Edition)
Then if they wanted to make some serious in-roads to the other markets they could create a new OS specifically tailored to work in networking (NE?) or even release a new Linux distribution (LE) or maybe create a true Microsoft branded desktop/laptop computer based on the XBox 360 architecture (XE)…
Ron Schenone
October 26th, 2008
at 5:23pm
Hi Mike,
Thanks for sharing your opinion with us. It is appreciated.