Windows SuperSite on the XP and Vista Conundrum.

The Windows SuperSite, in an article about Windows XP SP3 being “good enough”, discusses the “Windows XP and the Vista conundrum“:

I mean, imagine a case in which customers were allowed to choose between a previous generation Toyota Camry and the all-new, designed-from-the-ground-up 2008 model, and the customers actually chose the old version by a roughly 2-to-1 margin, despite the fact that the price hadn’t changed at all?

If that happened, the automotive press would be nearly unanimous in their conclusion that the new Camry sucks and is totally out of touch with what consumers want. Further, they’d be clear in their criticisms of Toyota.

For their part, Toyota may or may not choose to admit their blunder, or instead blame third-party suppliers, the press, and perhaps the customers themselves.

With Vista and the tech world, however, while most of the tech press knows it’s a disaster, Microsoft and their shills have admitted little more than a bare minimum of responsibility. Instead, it’s bad marketing. Or price. Or third-party drivers. Or nothing a Service Pack can’t fix. Or hardware. Or exaggerated reporting. Or just a perception issue.

And, apparently, it’s also those darn customers not wanting to move forward — as if they really wanted to wallow in a seven-year-old OS!

Whatever. The scenario the SuperSite describes will not occur because Toyota will not screw up their latest and greatest as badly as Microsoft completely and totally screwed the pooch on Vista.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Windows SuperSite on the XP and Vista Conundrum.

  1. Wait. Paul said Vista is running on 120M PCs??? Where did he pull that figure? There is no WAY 120M PCs are running Vista. Vista has been out roughly over a year. That would mean roughly 328K PCs sold every day that run Vista. No way, no how. It just isn’t happening. I want to see some cold, hard facts first. How about a link, Paul? How about all the people who switched to XP? If Vista isn’t a failure, then why is MSFT so quick to point to Windows 7? Answer some basic facts, Paul?

    I love the way Paul throws out an assumption with no facts to point to and then rakes others over the coals when they do use them from a third-party. Just another MSFT shill in the cog.

  2. Nick said –
    … “But I think the tech press _is_ fairly critical of Vista — perhaps surprisingly so,” …

    Tom had already stated this belief – … “while most of the tech press knows it’s a disaster, Microsoft and their shills have admitted little more than a bare minimum of responsibility.”

    It is the last sentence that carries Toms’ ratiocination.

    Nick also said –
    …”I hate to bring this up, but at CanSecWest the MacBook Air has gone, but the Vista machine is still standing. (To be serious, one’s still probably safer on a Mac, because it’s a smaller target.)”

    Sorry Tom, but here, I would like to point Nick to the link below.

    http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/03/29/mac-shot-first-10-reasons-why-cansecwest-targets-apple/#more-1675

    Nick, as for your summary of Vista – in a nutshell, it seems to me that you are affirming the fact that Vista sorta “sucks”.

    On a side note – Tom, It is interesting that you seemingly went out of your way not to mention Paul Thurrott by name, preferring to stick with “The Windows SuperSite” or I am I reading too much into wot’ I’m reading.

  3. “If that happened, the automotive press would be nearly unanimous in their conclusion that the new Camry sucks and is totally out of touch with what consumers want.”

    But I think the tech press _is_ fairly critical of Vista — perhaps surprisingly so, considering that it depends on the MS eco-system and associated advertising, and besides that MS doubtless tries its best to sweeten influential tech journalists.

    I’m not going to click the link to Paul’s site to find out exactly what he’s saying, because his apologias for Microsoft annoy me; but if he’s saying customers are making the “wrong” choice, I suspect he may have a point. You see, you’ve actually got two different points there that you’re rolling into one:

    1. sucks

    and

    2. out of touch with what consumers want

    Now when you get down to it “sucks” is too vague to have much meaning. The real question here is what it’s like in comparison with XP in certain important respects. And “what consumers want” is a different matter. I’d suggest one thing consumers want is for old programs and old peripherals (and new peripherals come to that!) to work.

    One reason those won’t work is because Microsoft changed the driver model at a late stage. Now they darn well needed to change their driver model, because the old one was insecure and caused BSoDs and whatnot. So while not having your printer work definitely “sucks”, it’s not at all clear to me that an OS that has a more secure model (where, for example, the drivers are moved out into user space as far as possible) also “sucks”. It’s temporarily inconvenient, but it’s a necessary move — and, actually, it’s the OS that does it in the wrong and more insecure way that “sucks”.

    Similarly, IE under Vista runs in a protected mode, so that it is far harder to compromise the operating system from the browser. Does that “suck”? In fact, so far as security goes, my understanding is that Microsoft had to completely re-work much of the OS. Also, now they have stringent code reviews and use techniques like randomization.

    I’m not sure that it’s not the older, more insecure Microsoft OSes that “suck” — poor security is definitely a bad thing in and of itself.

    I don’t like Microsoft. I don’t like their unethical and illegal business practices. I’m also deeply suspicious of Windows Vista Content Protection. Besides, in general “look and feel”, elegance, and ease of use I think OS X wins hands down. So I wouldn’t buy a Windows machine anyway. And if I needed a new machine and couldn’t afford a Mac I’d probably look for a cheap machine with pre-installed Linux.

    But if we’re talking just about Windows machines then I suspect Vista is a better choice than XP in at least one important respect — viz, security. Yeah, an ex-XP user will find it’ll run slower (unless perhaps he switches all the glitz off and changes some settings), and some of his peripherals might not work, and in any case he won’t be comfortable because he’s used to a different interface. But reworked to be made more secure is better in and of itself.

    I hate to bring this up, but at CanSecWest the MacBook Air has gone, but the Vista machine is still standing. (To be serious, one’s still probably safer on a Mac, because it’s a smaller target.)

    You have to ask yourself: does the general public think about software security or know much about how it’s achieved in engineering terms? But that is important.

  4. Reading Paul’s article actually embarrassed me. It was painful and I couldn’t finish it. Painful.

    For the record, we use XP via Parallels because it’s faster and more reliable than Vista. I”m betting that MS extends (again) the market availability of XP, or renames it.

Comments are closed.