Article: 10 Things I Warned Microsoft About Windows Vista

Posted March 17, 200817 yr

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/vista/10_things_i_warned_microsoft_about_windows_vista.html

this is an article by Joe Wilcox

and he states:

"I worked as an analyst when Microsoft developed Windows Vista. Execs asked

for my advice, and they got it. Did they listen?"

But of course the vistaboys and frank king of the apes, will just discredit

him too...

it seems like they think that their own experience is better than US pros..

yes me included... with over 25 years of computer experience, I know when an

OS is POS.

let the mud flow freely for vista!

let the truth shine, and THEN lets decide if we should use it or not...

not get it shoved down our throughts in the dark (not mine but the average

user)

here is the text of the article

The imminent real release of Windows Vista Service Pack 1 is reason enough

to broach the question. SP1 is an important milestone for an operating

system that bloggers and other critics consistently ridicule. Oh, yeah, the

channel and enterprises aren't exactly loving Vista either.

These 10 things are in no particular order of importance.

1. Windows Vista has to be a whole lot better than Windows XP. Microsoft had

left XP in the market for a long time. That version of Windows had reached a

certain "good enough" threshold, in part because of the stable, supporting

ecosystem. Vista would have to be a whole lot better to drive upgrades in

established markets. I received assurances that Vista would deliver on the

promise, which was later accentuated in the "Wow" marketing. What happened:

Vista wasn't better enough.

2. Vista will miss the big PC upgrade cycle. A major enterprise PC refresh

cycle started in 2004 and continued through mid-2006. In early 2006, I

warned Microsoft executives that Vista would ship too late. What happened:

The major upgrade cycle wound down, but computer sales remained strong

because of consumer upgrades and a massive shift to portables. So, Vista

missed the big hardware refresh cycle but caught another one. However, in

part because of #1, many businesses opted for Windows XP instead of Vista on

those shiny, new notebooks.

3. Windows Vista Home Basic is too basic. I strongly recommended against

Microsoft's releasing this version at any price. Microsoft executives

insisted that OEMs wanted a low-cost Vista version for cheap PCs. But Basic

offered less than Windows XP Home for about the same price. I called it a

hidden price increase. What happened: There is limited demand for Home

Basic.

4. Call it Windows Basic. Vista Home Basic was so defeatured, I strongly

encouraged Microsoft to remove the Vista name from the product. I warned

that Basic would tarnish the broader Vista brand and that its streamlined

features put it in a lower category. I bet a Microsoft product manager $100

that Windows Basic would become the default nomenclature. What happened:

Other problems affecting every Vista version, such as applications and

drivers incompatibilities, overshadowed Basic's weak feature set. Oh yeah, I

owe somebody at Microsoft 100 bucks. I don't recall who you are, but don't

feel impish about collecting.

5. Vista reminds too much of Windows Me. In late 2006, I had dinner with

some Vista user interface designers. By then, I had used Vista betas for

nearly 10 months. They heard: There are two Microsoft operating systems that

the more I used them the less I liked them-Windows Me and Windows Vista.

While not my intention, the comment hugely insulted the UI designers,

because of how much Windows Me is regarded, even within Microsoft, as a

marketing failure. What happened: Some critics have described Vista as

Windows Me II.

6. One Vista version is enough. I opposed Microsoft's Vista SKU strategy

from the first presentation and, later, after some tweaking. I explained

that Windows isn't toothpaste. Too many versions would confuse customers,

creating an unnecessary impediment to Vista upgrades. How could Vista be

perceived as better enough if the buying experience was more difficult than

XP? I strongly advocated a one-version strategy, but with differentiated OEM

pricing depending on features used by the hardware. I reasoned the approach

would simplify Windows purchasing while encouraging greater PC

differentiation. What happened: The OEM market has largely consolidated

around a single version: Vista Home Premium for consumers. It's all Gateway

sells, for example. Many enterprises are adopting Vista Enterprise, which is

a volume licensing-only option.

7. It has to be multiple SKUs or Windows Experience Index, but not both. WEI

would confuse Vista buyers because the ratings would contradict with some

versions. For example, Vista Ultimate could conceivably ship on a notebook

with WEI of 3.0 (out of a possible 5.9). Customers would ask: If it's so

ultimate, why is the rating so slow? I liked the WEI concept more than the

SKU strategy and recommended choosing only the ratings scheme. What

happened: WEI ratings were low the first year on notebooks, even those with

Vista Ultimate.

8. Vista demands too much. From my earliest product briefings, Microsoft

executives carted around big honking laptops-luggables-to get enough

processing and graphics power to run early Vista builds. I was told Vista

would need less power closer to release. Nope. I got my first Vista test

system in February 2006. WEI: 2.0, on above-average hardware. What happened:

OEMs shipped computers underpowered for Vista, even through holiday 2007.

The operating system demands too much from even modestly older hardware.

9. Windows Vista Capable is a bad idea. Why could Microsoft possibly need

two Vista logo programs? The connotations around Capable and Ready were

either too alike or too confusing. I said that there should be one program

for which everything truly was ready. Unfortunately, Microsoft didn't

consult me on the logo programs, so I gave my advice after the Capable logo

announcement. What happened: A Vista Capable class-action lawsuit revealed

embarrassing Microsoft e-mails about Windows Vista decision-making

processes-or lack of them.

10. Vista security features increase complexity, decrease usability. Oh, I

was a loud critic of UAC (User Account Control) and Internet Explorer

warnings. I argued that Microsoft had made Vista much harder to use than

Windows XP. The experience would be worse for many users. Going back to #1,

Vista had to be a lot better, not perceptually worse. What happened: UAC

warnings hurt usability but caused more troubles new user rights mechanism

broke many applications.

Quote

Mark as Solution

March 17, 200817 yr

Wow, There needs to be an uprising of disgruntled vista

users and microsoft needs to fix the damn thing. (vista)

I am a college student and spent good money on updating my pc and also

bought a new laptop. Man, was that a mistake! My machine I built in 2002

and has xp on it and runs so much better! I am so disappointed and am

investigating open source because I am sick of being at the mercy of an OS

that does not function properly.

vista sucks the big one! and I cannot even downgrade because they put vista

home pre. on the machines I bought. What crap! and thousands of dollars

later I have

an Os that I do not like! Microsoft better listen to us or linux will be on

the horizon and looming large!

"On the Bridge!" <On@the,bridge> wrote in message

news:47de8718@newsgate.x-privat.org...

> http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/vista/10_things_i_warned_microsoft_about_windows_vista.html

>

> this is an article by Joe Wilcox

> and he states:

> "I worked as an analyst when Microsoft developed Windows Vista. Execs

> asked for my advice, and they got it. Did they listen?"

>

> But of course the vistaboys and frank king of the apes, will just

> discredit him too...

> it seems like they think that their own experience is better than US

> pros..

> yes me included... with over 25 years of computer experience, I know when

> an OS is POS.

>

> let the mud flow freely for vista!

> let the truth shine, and THEN lets decide if we should use it or not...

> not get it shoved down our throughts in the dark (not mine but the average

> user)

>

> here is the text of the article

>

> The imminent real release of Windows Vista Service Pack 1 is reason enough

> to broach the question. SP1 is an important milestone for an operating

> system that bloggers and other critics consistently ridicule. Oh, yeah,

> the channel and enterprises aren't exactly loving Vista either.

> These 10 things are in no particular order of importance.

> 1. Windows Vista has to be a whole lot better than Windows XP. Microsoft

> had left XP in the market for a long time. That version of Windows had

> reached a certain "good enough" threshold, in part because of the stable,

> supporting ecosystem. Vista would have to be a whole lot better to drive

> upgrades in established markets. I received assurances that Vista would

> deliver on the promise, which was later accentuated in the "Wow"

> marketing. What happened: Vista wasn't better enough.

> 2. Vista will miss the big PC upgrade cycle. A major enterprise PC refresh

> cycle started in 2004 and continued through mid-2006. In early 2006, I

> warned Microsoft executives that Vista would ship too late. What happened:

> The major upgrade cycle wound down, but computer sales remained strong

> because of consumer upgrades and a massive shift to portables. So, Vista

> missed the big hardware refresh cycle but caught another one. However, in

> part because of #1, many businesses opted for Windows XP instead of Vista

> on those shiny, new notebooks.

> 3. Windows Vista Home Basic is too basic. I strongly recommended against

> Microsoft's releasing this version at any price. Microsoft executives

> insisted that OEMs wanted a low-cost Vista version for cheap PCs. But

> Basic offered less than Windows XP Home for about the same price. I called

> it a hidden price increase. What happened: There is limited demand for

> Home Basic.

> 4. Call it Windows Basic. Vista Home Basic was so defeatured, I strongly

> encouraged Microsoft to remove the Vista name from the product. I warned

> that Basic would tarnish the broader Vista brand and that its streamlined

> features put it in a lower category. I bet a Microsoft product manager

> $100 that Windows Basic would become the default nomenclature. What

> happened: Other problems affecting every Vista version, such as

> applications and drivers incompatibilities, overshadowed Basic's weak

> feature set. Oh yeah, I owe somebody at Microsoft 100 bucks. I don't

> recall who you are, but don't feel impish about collecting.

> 5. Vista reminds too much of Windows Me. In late 2006, I had dinner with

> some Vista user interface designers. By then, I had used Vista betas for

> nearly 10 months. They heard: There are two Microsoft operating systems

> that the more I used them the less I liked them-Windows Me and Windows

> Vista. While not my intention, the comment hugely insulted the UI

> designers, because of how much Windows Me is regarded, even within

> Microsoft, as a marketing failure. What happened: Some critics have

> described Vista as Windows Me II.

> 6. One Vista version is enough. I opposed Microsoft's Vista SKU strategy

> from the first presentation and, later, after some tweaking. I explained

> that Windows isn't toothpaste. Too many versions would confuse customers,

> creating an unnecessary impediment to Vista upgrades. How could Vista be

> perceived as better enough if the buying experience was more difficult

> than XP? I strongly advocated a one-version strategy, but with

> differentiated OEM pricing depending on features used by the hardware. I

> reasoned the approach would simplify Windows purchasing while encouraging

> greater PC differentiation. What happened: The OEM market has largely

> consolidated around a single version: Vista Home Premium for consumers.

> It's all Gateway sells, for example. Many enterprises are adopting Vista

> Enterprise, which is a volume licensing-only option.

> 7. It has to be multiple SKUs or Windows Experience Index, but not both.

> WEI would confuse Vista buyers because the ratings would contradict with

> some versions. For example, Vista Ultimate could conceivably ship on a

> notebook with WEI of 3.0 (out of a possible 5.9). Customers would ask: If

> it's so ultimate, why is the rating so slow? I liked the WEI concept more

> than the SKU strategy and recommended choosing only the ratings scheme.

> What happened: WEI ratings were low the first year on notebooks, even

> those with Vista Ultimate.

> 8. Vista demands too much. From my earliest product briefings, Microsoft

> executives carted around big honking laptops-luggables-to get enough

> processing and graphics power to run early Vista builds. I was told Vista

> would need less power closer to release. Nope. I got my first Vista test

> system in February 2006. WEI: 2.0, on above-average hardware. What

> happened: OEMs shipped computers underpowered for Vista, even through

> holiday 2007. The operating system demands too much from even modestly

> older hardware.

> 9. Windows Vista Capable is a bad idea. Why could Microsoft possibly need

> two Vista logo programs? The connotations around Capable and Ready were

> either too alike or too confusing. I said that there should be one program

> for which everything truly was ready. Unfortunately, Microsoft didn't

> consult me on the logo programs, so I gave my advice after the Capable

> logo announcement. What happened: A Vista Capable class-action lawsuit

> revealed embarrassing Microsoft e-mails about Windows Vista

> decision-making processes-or lack of them.

> 10. Vista security features increase complexity, decrease usability. Oh, I

> was a loud critic of UAC (User Account Control) and Internet Explorer

> warnings. I argued that Microsoft had made Vista much harder to use than

> Windows XP. The experience would be worse for many users. Going back to

> #1, Vista had to be a lot better, not perceptually worse. What happened:

> UAC warnings hurt usability but caused more troubles new user rights

> mechanism broke many applications.

>

Quote

Mark as Solution

March 17, 200817 yr

"Administrator" <larsenvl@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:3B47F841-1580-425A-8868-058FB8DF0740@microsoft.com...

> Wow, There needs to be an uprising of disgruntled vista

> users and microsoft needs to fix the damn thing. (vista)

> I am a college student and spent good money on updating my pc and also

> bought a new laptop. Man, was that a mistake! My machine I built in 2002

> and has xp on it and runs so much better!

So you're proud that your 6 year old machine runs XP! LOL! How well did

your 1996 computer run XP in 2002? I'm guessing it ran so well that you

built the new one in 2002, right?

Quote

Mark as Solution

March 17, 200817 yr

Kind of dumb to try to run a new os on a 6 year old machine. Enjoy Linux.

"Administrator" <larsenvl@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:3B47F841-1580-425A-8868-058FB8DF0740@microsoft.com...

> Wow, There needs to be an uprising of disgruntled vista

> users and microsoft needs to fix the damn thing. (vista)

> I am a college student and spent good money on updating my pc and also

> bought a new laptop. Man, was that a mistake! My machine I built in 2002

> and has xp on it and runs so much better! I am so disappointed and am

> investigating open source because I am sick of being at the mercy of an OS

> that does not function properly.

> vista sucks the big one! and I cannot even downgrade because they put

> vista home pre. on the machines I bought. What crap! and thousands of

> dollars later I have

> an Os that I do not like! Microsoft better listen to us or linux will be

> on the horizon and looming large!

> "On the Bridge!" <On@the,bridge> wrote in message

> news:47de8718@newsgate.x-privat.org...

>> http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/vista/10_things_i_warned_microsoft_about_windows_vista.html

>>

>> this is an article by Joe Wilcox

>> and he states:

>> "I worked as an analyst when Microsoft developed Windows Vista. Execs

>> asked for my advice, and they got it. Did they listen?"

>>

>> But of course the vistaboys and frank king of the apes, will just

>> discredit him too...

>> it seems like they think that their own experience is better than US

>> pros..

>> yes me included... with over 25 years of computer experience, I know when

>> an OS is POS.

>>

>> let the mud flow freely for vista!

>> let the truth shine, and THEN lets decide if we should use it or not...

>> not get it shoved down our throughts in the dark (not mine but the

>> average user)

>>

>> here is the text of the article

>>

>> The imminent real release of Windows Vista Service Pack 1 is reason

>> enough to broach the question. SP1 is an important milestone for an

>> operating system that bloggers and other critics consistently ridicule.

>> Oh, yeah, the channel and enterprises aren't exactly loving Vista either.

>> These 10 things are in no particular order of importance.

>> 1. Windows Vista has to be a whole lot better than Windows XP. Microsoft

>> had left XP in the market for a long time. That version of Windows had

>> reached a certain "good enough" threshold, in part because of the stable,

>> supporting ecosystem. Vista would have to be a whole lot better to drive

>> upgrades in established markets. I received assurances that Vista would

>> deliver on the promise, which was later accentuated in the "Wow"

>> marketing. What happened: Vista wasn't better enough.

>> 2. Vista will miss the big PC upgrade cycle. A major enterprise PC

>> refresh cycle started in 2004 and continued through mid-2006. In early

>> 2006, I warned Microsoft executives that Vista would ship too late. What

>> happened: The major upgrade cycle wound down, but computer sales remained

>> strong because of consumer upgrades and a massive shift to portables. So,

>> Vista missed the big hardware refresh cycle but caught another one.

>> However, in part because of #1, many businesses opted for Windows XP

>> instead of Vista on those shiny, new notebooks.

>> 3. Windows Vista Home Basic is too basic. I strongly recommended against

>> Microsoft's releasing this version at any price. Microsoft executives

>> insisted that OEMs wanted a low-cost Vista version for cheap PCs. But

>> Basic offered less than Windows XP Home for about the same price. I

>> called it a hidden price increase. What happened: There is limited demand

>> for Home Basic.

>> 4. Call it Windows Basic. Vista Home Basic was so defeatured, I strongly

>> encouraged Microsoft to remove the Vista name from the product. I warned

>> that Basic would tarnish the broader Vista brand and that its streamlined

>> features put it in a lower category. I bet a Microsoft product manager

>> $100 that Windows Basic would become the default nomenclature. What

>> happened: Other problems affecting every Vista version, such as

>> applications and drivers incompatibilities, overshadowed Basic's weak

>> feature set. Oh yeah, I owe somebody at Microsoft 100 bucks. I don't

>> recall who you are, but don't feel impish about collecting.

>> 5. Vista reminds too much of Windows Me. In late 2006, I had dinner with

>> some Vista user interface designers. By then, I had used Vista betas for

>> nearly 10 months. They heard: There are two Microsoft operating systems

>> that the more I used them the less I liked them-Windows Me and Windows

>> Vista. While not my intention, the comment hugely insulted the UI

>> designers, because of how much Windows Me is regarded, even within

>> Microsoft, as a marketing failure. What happened: Some critics have

>> described Vista as Windows Me II.

>> 6. One Vista version is enough. I opposed Microsoft's Vista SKU strategy

>> from the first presentation and, later, after some tweaking. I explained

>> that Windows isn't toothpaste. Too many versions would confuse customers,

>> creating an unnecessary impediment to Vista upgrades. How could Vista be

>> perceived as better enough if the buying experience was more difficult

>> than XP? I strongly advocated a one-version strategy, but with

>> differentiated OEM pricing depending on features used by the hardware. I

>> reasoned the approach would simplify Windows purchasing while encouraging

>> greater PC differentiation. What happened: The OEM market has largely

>> consolidated around a single version: Vista Home Premium for consumers.

>> It's all Gateway sells, for example. Many enterprises are adopting Vista

>> Enterprise, which is a volume licensing-only option.

>> 7. It has to be multiple SKUs or Windows Experience Index, but not both.

>> WEI would confuse Vista buyers because the ratings would contradict with

>> some versions. For example, Vista Ultimate could conceivably ship on a

>> notebook with WEI of 3.0 (out of a possible 5.9). Customers would ask: If

>> it's so ultimate, why is the rating so slow? I liked the WEI concept more

>> than the SKU strategy and recommended choosing only the ratings scheme.

>> What happened: WEI ratings were low the first year on notebooks, even

>> those with Vista Ultimate.

>> 8. Vista demands too much. From my earliest product briefings, Microsoft

>> executives carted around big honking laptops-luggables-to get enough

>> processing and graphics power to run early Vista builds. I was told Vista

>> would need less power closer to release. Nope. I got my first Vista test

>> system in February 2006. WEI: 2.0, on above-average hardware. What

>> happened: OEMs shipped computers underpowered for Vista, even through

>> holiday 2007. The operating system demands too much from even modestly

>> older hardware.

>> 9. Windows Vista Capable is a bad idea. Why could Microsoft possibly need

>> two Vista logo programs? The connotations around Capable and Ready were

>> either too alike or too confusing. I said that there should be one

>> program for which everything truly was ready. Unfortunately, Microsoft

>> didn't consult me on the logo programs, so I gave my advice after the

>> Capable logo announcement. What happened: A Vista Capable class-action

>> lawsuit revealed embarrassing Microsoft e-mails about Windows Vista

>> decision-making processes-or lack of them.

>> 10. Vista security features increase complexity, decrease usability. Oh,

>> I was a loud critic of UAC (User Account Control) and Internet Explorer

>> warnings. I argued that Microsoft had made Vista much harder to use than

>> Windows XP. The experience would be worse for many users. Going back to

>> #1, Vista had to be a lot better, not perceptually worse. What happened:

>> UAC warnings hurt usability but caused more troubles new user rights

>> mechanism broke many applications.

>>

>

Quote

Mark as Solution

March 17, 200817 yr

*throats!!!

gasp