ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE.

Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Windows VISTA review by Scot Finnie

(1/3) > >>

Carol Haynes:
Interesting review from Scot Finnie.

Visual Tour: 20 Things You Won't Like About Windows Vista
Scot Finnie   Today‚Äôs Top Stories    or  Other Windows Stories 
 
Trials and Tribulations of Delivering Enterprise Applications over a WAN

See more Webcasts more
Blogs
" The Chinese government has decreed that they want Linux compatible computers. That's a fairly strong sign that the Chinese..." Read more...
" Now I'm mad. Not VA-screws-over-26.5-million-vets mad or Microsoft-bullies-its-customers mad, I admit. But those are things just about anyone..." Read more...
Read more Windows posts or See all Blogs

June 01, 2006 (Computerworld) -- The same thing happened with Windows XP. When Beta 2 arrived, I found myself torn between what was new and good about the operating system, and what was new and bad.

Significant negatives back in 2001 included product activation (which doesn't affect Microsoft volume licensing customers), changes to the network-configuration user interface and the way XP interacted with other versions of Windows on small networks. Was Windows XP truly better than Windows 2000? It was a toss-up in many ways. In the end, I went with the improved app compatibility and user interface improvements of XP. But it wasn't by much.

Well, Microsoft just upped the ante on internal conflict with the release of Vista Beta 2. It boils down to this: The software giant is favoring security and IT controls over end-user productivity. Don't get me wrong, security and IT manageability are very good things. But some of the people actually using the Beta 2 Vista software describe their experience as akin to that of a rat caught in a maze.

Business and home users will be nonplussed by the blizzard of protect-you-from-yourself password-entry and "Continue" boxes required by the User Account Controls feature, for example. Networking functions and settings are scattered all over the place. The same is true of what Windows XP calls Display Properties. By default, the main menus (you know, File, Edit, View, etc.) are turned off on Windows Vista folders, Internet Explorer 7 and several other programs and utilities that come with Vista. Listing 20 things you won't like about Windows Vista was unfortunately all too easy. The question is: Why couldn't Microsoft see this coming?
--- End quote ---

Read the whole thing (all 13+ pages) at http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9000829

JavaJones:
*sigh* I used to be excited about this OS. Is it really *that* hard to do things well? In some aspects OS X suggests not. I get the distinct feeling that if Apple weren't up their own backside about how fantastic they are, and so concerned with making sure not to go back on previous "Apple Wisdom" (like 1 button mice are better), they'd actually have a really obviously superior OS. As it is I think it trades blows with XP. It comes out ahead in a lot of areas, but also behind in many, and those latter areas are the ones I often care about. :p But again, if Apple just opened their minds a little more I think OS X could really shine. I can sort of say the same about MS, except that MS doesn't seem to have the raw ability (or a good core to work on?) to do it. Apple has continued to innovate and dramatically improve OS X since its introduction with regular updates. MS meanwhile have really only focused in *fixing* XP since launch. The major substance of the service packs were security updates. Beyond that we have not seen cool functionality like Spotlight, Dashboard, etc. come along. Sure MS has created these things separately, and I agree they shouldn't be *mandatory*, but sometimes you have something that should just be *a part of the OS*. Apple seems to have a pretty good clue about what that stuff is, MS not so much.

Ah well, here's hoping Windows ReallyLonghorn will be better. :D

- Oshyan

Carol Haynes:
If Apple had any sense at all they would produce a generic version for all current Intel boxes out there and do what MS did in their IBM heyday.

Could you imagine the take up of MacOSX if it were made available for every Windows box at 50% of the price of Windows. I think the market would flip - certainly now that Windows Vista is about to be released in a bewildering range of flavours. The big advantage over Linux would be that so many premium software packages work as well or better on MacOS.

Hey ho - Apple haven't got the sense/imagination to understand that that is why MS have the big bucks and 92% market share - they never did and they never will.

Darwin:
I agree with you, Carol. I cannot for the life of me understand why Apple are not releasing OS-X into the wild for all to install. It just seems like the common sense "business" step to take. Who knows, though, perhaps it is in the cards and they are just waiting for the right time - perhaps when Vista is closer to release?

Carol Haynes:
No it will never be in the cards - Apple have always seen selling their own hardware as their key market. To be fair one of the reasons they have the reputation of a stable OS is the restrictive nature of their hardware. I also think they are too short sighted to release MacOS into the world - I'd guess they are worried about piracy, but fail to see MS has built its reputation on volume sales including piracy which has forced their market growth more than they will admit.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version