Windows Mojave

Mojave is basically an insult from Steve Ballmer to us. They're saying "You're too dumb to make your own decision, you clearly do not know anything about Vista."

No, Steve, I think we know plenty about Vista, thanks. I'll buy it... in 2010, when I get a new rig.
 
Terpfen said:
Mojave is basically an insult from Steve Ballmer to us. They're saying "You're too dumb to make your own decision, you clearly do not know anything about Vista."

No, Steve, I think we know plenty about Vista, thanks. I'll buy it... in 2010, when I get a new rig.
Click to expand...

Actually, in many cases, I'd say they're right.
 
mps said:
The preferred OS of techies? An improvement over XP in nearly every way? :rolleyes: I suggest you read this thread.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1335145
Click to expand...

Good job invalidating everything you might say in the future by comparing personal usage by tech enthusiasts to large-scale business rollouts :rolleyes:. When you're talking about deploying an OS across a business, the pros and cons of the operating system itself are usually fairly insignificant compared to the other factors that need to be considered, like application compatibility, system requirements, the logistics of putting an OS on a massive number of computers, overall cost, etc.

When it comes to a personal user deciding which OS to use, the choice is largely based on how good each OS is. That's why, if you take a look around this forum, the majority of people use Vista as their main personal OS, and a lot of the people who still use XP are only doing it because they were already running XP and didn't bother to upgrade.
 
Zetherin said:
Actually, in many cases, I'd say they're right.
Click to expand...

Heavily disagreed. Most caveats regarding Vista are justifiable. (Most, not all.)

I attempted to install Vista SP1 on the computer listed in my signature, only to have it choke on boot; it either could not load or refused to load one DLL file, and as a result booting would literally take around 15 minutes while it took its merry time deciding when to continue booting. Ran okay once it finally loaded, but the wait time was simply unjustifiable.

I look forward to using either Vista or Windows 7 in 2010.
 
I'm wondering if I'll have more success simply b/c my hardware is newer. Quick google search does show quite a few people using my exact mobo with Vista x64, so from the cookie-cutter stand point, it seems I should be doing fine.

Also helps that I'm researching all the drivers I would need wayyy ahead of time. E.g. found that ZyDAS 1211 driver for my Hawking HWU54D is Vista compatible, sweet! Hopefully X-Fi/Creative shenanigans have also died down by now. Heck, last time I upgraded to a new OS was going to XP when my 98SE box went down b/c my painted bridges failed...

This time I'm making plenty of preparations...hopefully I'll be ready then. I'm also kind of tempering my hopes for Windows 7, considering it's just going to build off of Vista.
 
Terpfen said:
Heavily disagreed. Most caveats regarding Vista are justifiable. (Most, not all.)

I attempted to install Vista SP1 on the computer listed in my signature, only to have it choke on boot; it either could not load or refused to load one DLL file, and as a result booting would literally take around 15 minutes while it took its merry time deciding when to continue booting. Ran okay once it finally loaded, but the wait time was simply unjustifiable.

I look forward to using either Vista or Windows 7 in 2010.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the missing DLL problem was, but you fixed it, and regardless it doesn't really add up that it's a reflection of the operating itself. You even just said it ran fine once it boot.

So because of your initial DLL problem (which seems to be a fluke), you refrain from using Vista?
 
Mav451 said:
I'm wondering if I'll have more success simply b/c my hardware is newer. Quick google search does show quite a few people using my exact mobo with Vista x64, so from the cookie-cutter stand point, it seems I should be doing fine.

Also helps that I'm researching all the drivers I would need wayyy ahead of time. E.g. found that ZyDAS 1211 driver for my Hawking HWU54D is Vista compatible, sweet! Hopefully X-Fi/Creative shenanigans have also died down by now. Heck, last time I upgraded to a new OS was going to XP when my 98SE box went down b/c my painted bridges failed...

This time I'm making plenty of preparations...hopefully I'll be ready then. I'm also kind of tempering my hopes for Windows 7, considering it's just going to build off of Vista.
Click to expand...

Most recent hardware's drivers ARE Vista compatible. Perhaps when Vista just came out it did have driver compatibility issues, but I haven't seen any since owning the OS this July. Maybe, like you, I just got lucky and have a system new enough.
 
Zetherin said:
I'm not sure what the missing DLL problem was, but you fixed it, and regardless it doesn't really add up that it's a reflection of the operating itself. You even just said it ran fine once it boot.

So because of your initial DLL problem (which seems to be a fluke), you refrain from using Vista?
Click to expand...

It wasn't a fluke; I Googled for the issue at the time and I was far from the only person experiencing it. If I could remember the name of the DLL, I would gladly give it to you. And, no, I didn't fix the problem. I'm not running Vista; I reinstalled XP. Whatever the problem with the DLL was, it was something beyond fixing. Believe me, I tried.

So, yes, as a result of a problem that was not fixable despite my best efforts, I refrain from using Vista. Not sure why this is controversial.

Edit: if memory serves, the specific file was crcdisk.sys.
 
By now I've done I think no less then 20 or so Vista installs on all types of hardware, old and new. Not a single issue on any of them. So you have to ask yourself, does a minority of real (by real I mean not user/hardware error) issues mean Vista is a crappy OS, or is it to be expected that Microsoft literally cannot guarantee perfection across all hardware variations imaginable. I'd say they've done a damn good job however from what I've seen personally. Let's keep it in perspective here, perfection is impossible.
 
Terpfen said:
It wasn't a fluke; I Googled for the issue at the time and I was far from the only person experiencing it.
Click to expand...
So, are you saying no one else out there, on any forums, has issues with XP, Linux, or Mac OSX? You had an isolated incident, so that means Vista is a joke, and most knocks against it are justified?

Most "caveats" against Vista ARE NOT justified, and that's part of the point Mojave tried to prove, and did so very well. I don't know, but apparently on here, on person's experience equates to a factual statement. Speaking of facts, I'd love to see this debate stick to them, in that Vista is a great OS as well, just like XP, and it works beautifully for the vast majority of people who use it. OldPueblo makes some great points, and when you consider how many software and hardware companies lagged in testing and supporting their products because they "heard" Vista would tank, you can easily see why Vista has a bad rap.
 
I guess by Terpfen's definition, anytime he has problems with his computer, it's automatically the OS's fault and it deserves a bad reputation.
 
People seem to miss the whole point of the Mojave thing. It's not to call people stupid, but to illustrate how people are forming opinions that are not true based on nothing more than hearsay.

Take a look at the subjects. All of them were people that had negative opinions about Vista despite of never actually even seeing the OS. In truth MS didn't fool anyone more than the press or any of Apple's commercials did.
 
griffinhart said:
People seem to miss the whole point of the Mojave thing. It's not to call people stupid, but to illustrate how people are forming opinions that are not true based on nothing more than hearsay.

Take a look at the subjects. All of them were people that had negative opinions about Vista despite of never actually even seeing the OS. In truth MS didn't fool anyone more than the press or any of Apple's commercials did.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Again, the point of this thread was to enlighten, to allow people to consider, despite the hearsay that is around, Vista. It was not intended to be pro Vista, but rather pro choice. It's very interesting how herded we become; that was the premise behind all this! And let me make note that this social phenomenon goes WAY beyond Vista! It's present in countless examples of political, economical, religious....oops, I'm getting a bit too philosophical. Anyway, I'd just like to see people informed and have personal experience before forming an opinion.

Terpfen,

With your case, you did admit it was working fine after you fixed the DLL (this is present in post #46), right? So, even after admitting it did work fine, it seems you are holding a grudge against it, as if to almost personify the software. In other words, because it hurt you in the past, you're not willing to give it a second chance! Despite what it seems, the DLL problem you experienced is a rare incident. I just don't feel that this DLL problem, which realistically is only present on a fraction of discs, is a reflection of the entire OS. And again, if you didn't like Vista for other reasons, that's fine - I just have a slight problem with you basing everything off of a rare incident.
 
Did any of you look at Terpfen's sig? He's running hardware that dates from when XP was new. No wonder Vista has trouble installing and running on his system.

Look, some people are just bound and determined not to accept Vista (or anything else new). It's the way of the world. I just got my new issue of MaxPC in the mail last night, and while I haven't read the whole cover article yet, the cover screams, "Microsoft admits Vista's failure! Here's how they plan to make Windows 7 better!" (or something like that). And then they have a bunch of canned benches in the article which purport to show that Vista sucks compared to XP, and they list all of Vista's supposed problems, along with a "Microsoft insider's" take on what went wrong and why. And on the front page of the web site today, they have an article posted which claims that 35% of computers bought with Vista have been downgraded to XP. Way to pile it on, guys!

Vista (especially 64-bit) is different enough from XP where I could see there might be a problem with a large-scale corporate rollout, especially when proprietary apps were involved. From a personal-user standpoint, however, I can't see any reason not to upgrade to Vista 64. Everything I have (hardware and software) works fine, the system is stable, and the UI is not that different from XP, so the learning curve is not that high.

It's high time Microsoft took a stand against the Luddites who spread FUD about Vista. I hope they kick ass with their Mojave marketing campaign.
 
whoa I didn't even notice

Dell XPS | Pentium 4 HT 2.8 GHz | 3GB DDR, 2x 1GB, 2x 512MB | Sapphire Radeon HD3850 AGP

Jesus Terfen, upgrade your rig before you judge a new operating system. You have almost no say in evaluating Vista's performance and compatibility.
 
Not that I want to get in the habit of someone who's needlessly bashing Vista, but that system of his should run Vista just fine. I've run Vista in lesser systems with Aero enabled, without an issue.
 
DeaconFrost said:
Not that I want to get in the habit of someone who's needlessly bashing Vista, but that system of his should run Vista just fine. I've run Vista in lesser systems with Aero enabled, without an issue.
Click to expand...

Just because it's doable doesn't always mean its recommended. I've also installed Vista on less capable machines with no issues, but sometimes hardware and OS just don't get along.

"You can drive your car with your feet if you want to! That doesn't make it a good f*cking idea" -Chris Rock
 
Azhar said:
whoa I didn't even notice

Dell XPS | Pentium 4 HT 2.8 GHz | 3GB DDR, 2x 1GB, 2x 512MB | Sapphire Radeon HD3850 AGP

Jesus Terfen, upgrade your rig before you judge a new operating system. You have almost no say in evaluating Vista's performance and compatibility.
Click to expand...

That rig should have no problem with Vista. It's fast enough, and more importantly has enough ram.
Then again, if he had Xp running fine on it, no really good reason to upgrade to Vista either.
 
Zetherin said:
With your case, you did admit it was working fine after you fixed the DLL (this is present in post #46), right? So, even after admitting it did work fine, it seems you are holding a grudge against it, as if to almost personify the software.
Click to expand...

Except it didn't work. Every time I rebooted, I would have to wait 15 or so minutes for the thing to actually load. That's absolutely unacceptable. Vista worked fine when it finally loaded, but I'm unaware of any scenario in which a 15 minute boot time is reasonable, especially because of the specific problem I had.

In other words, because it hurt you in the past, you're not willing to give it a second chance!
Click to expand...

Then please explain why I continue to write that I look forward to using it in the future, when I get a new computer.

I think you've got the wrong impression of my stance on Mojave and Vista. You seem to think I'm one of the generic Vista bashers out there. I'm not. I dislike the Mojave concept, because it's pure deception on several levels (Vista is presented on a closed and controlled environment, for one.) It's also tantamount to Microsoft calling its users idiots for not adopting Vista. This is not Microsoft listening to its users' complaints, this is Microsoft shooting the messenger.

Vista is certainly a fine OS. That does not mean it's problem-free. Its problems are not behind it.

Azhar said:
Jesus Terfen, upgrade your rig before you judge a new operating system. You have almost no say in evaluating Vista's performance and compatibility.
Click to expand...

If you think my computer is incapable of running Vista properly, then not only have you not been reading the thread, but you're completely unaware of Vista's performance requirements.
 
Terpfen, the "Boot stalls at crcdisk.sys' issue is a rather common one, but it isn't one which is restricted to Vista SP1 or even Vista at all. Happens on more than a few XP machines as well, and it can happen as a result of quite a few causes. the fact that you see other people reporting it on the internet doesn't show that it's an inbuilt problem to Vista SP1. People for whom it's not a problem don't rush to the internet to announce to all and sundry "It WORKS!!!!"

Mostly, problems like this can be traced back to user-created causes. Stuff like corrupted driver installs, tweakings the user has performed and not realised the potential impact of, software trying to load its related files and which hasn't been written in accordance with best programming practices, etc etc etc. Not necessarily stuff which indicates 'fault' rather than 'naivety' in the user, but nevertheless stuff which has resulted from the user's computing activity. Sometimes it can be something as simple as an incompleted update of some sort or other, and resolved after a reboot or two.

Sometimes, and less commonly, problems like this trace back to hardware related causes. There's a rather widely sold model of WD 320Gb hard drive, for example, which has Vista incompatibilities which often has it creating intermittent 'crcdisk.sys' boot hangs under Vista. I've a Vista rig in use here for which the motherboard chipset implementation simply won't let it be reliable when having Vista installed to and booting from a SATA hard drive. (That'n was easy to fix. I bunged an IDE drive in it to use as the system drive!) There are plenty of motherboards in circulation for which the BIOS implementation of ACPU generates this behaviour at times.


Thing is though, that the way you've contributed to thread here kinda supports the contention of the 'Mojave experiment'. You've experienced a problem and you've become one the the "It's Vista!" people who misinform public opinion. That's kinda understandable, if you've only experienced the problem under Vista and not under other OS's, but being understandable doesn't make it right. Simple fact is that there's a 'cause' for the behaviour you experienced, and that 'cause' isn't Vista. If it was, then every person using Vista would experience the problem, and most people using it don't experience the same problem. It's understandable and reasonable to revert to XP too, if XP serves your purposes well enough. Doing that removes the need to isolate and resolve the cause of the problem, if it was only manifesting under Vista. But it's not reasonable to say that the experience supports the contention that Vista is 'flawed'. Something about the rig Vista was running on was flawed.



The 'Mojave Experiment' might be an advertising campaign, but that doesn't make it an exercise in misinformation. What it 'says' is quite correct. There are a helluva lot of people out there who have nevver even so much as seen Vista, but who nevertheless have already formed opinion about it based on bad press and word of mouth negativity spreading misinformation. Right from the start of the period when 'geek Journals started reviewing pre-release Vista candidates there has been an extent of scandal-mongering which I've never seen before in relation to any other OS release. I think it is no coincidence that it kinda coincided with the timeline of the rise in popularity of Digg and Slashdot type networks of people online, and I think it all speaks volumes about the integrity and veracity of IT journalism in general nowadays. It's pandering to an audience which finds it 'cool to bash', and it can only result in the uninformed being misinformed.

The truth is, and has been from the outset, that Vista is a vastly improved user exxperience over earlier Windows versions. The following is the actual scenario I've seen, time after time, when people have actually confronted Vista for what it is and tried the thing out:

mmtom said:
I was getting my hair cut a couple of weeks ago, when my barber mentioned getting a new PC from Costco. He said that he bought it there because he wanted to be able to return it incase he didn't like it...and by "it" he didn't mean the HP computer, he meant Vista. He said he'd heard a lot of bad stuff about it from TV, the Internet "and those Apple commercials."

Then he goes on to say that he was plugging it all in and hooked up his printer. He went over to HP's website to get drivers, but before he could do anything, a popup showed up that said it was installing the drivers already...Vista went out, downloaded the drivers and software that it needed, and installed them (XP would do drivers, but not software..I've had Vista install my Logitech camera software, HP printer software, etc). He was pretty impressed. A sentence after saying how "unsure he is," he's telling me how much he likes some features. After chatting with him about a few other things it really seemed that he liked it, and the only reason he was ever unsure of it was all of the bad press and "reviews." I told him about some things that I liked, and tried to convey some of the other features in a non-technical matter, and by the end of my haircut (during which there were no "accidents") he seemed much more confident in his deicison. No preaching. No "WELL THIS BENCHMARK SAYS!!" Just things that my parents would appreciate about an operating system. Better security, easier device installation, a better media experience, and, yes, eye candy.
Click to expand...
 
^^^ Well stated.

I got home and looked at the cover of the Oct 2008 issue of Maximum PC and the actual headline is "Inside Microsoft's $6 Billion Failure Exclusive! Microsoft bares all, telling us what went wrong with Vista & how they fixed the problems PLUS Vista vs. XP benchmarks & What Microsoft must include in Windows 7"

These guys sound like that guy over at the Inq who has it in for NVidia.

Honestly, "failure"?

Did MS make money off of the 100's of millions of copies they've sold so far? I think so. Then it's not a failure.

With crap like this even in PC magazines, not to mention the Apple attack ads, I think it is high time that MS stood up and defended itself. Which the company has every right to do if it is to survive and thrive.

And Terpfen, I think you are looking at the whole Mojave ad campaign wrong. Giving people a taste of Vista and not telling them what it really is until after they are impressed is merely the latest incarnation of the old "Coke vs Pepsi" or other blind taste test commercials that we all remember. I don't think it is an attempt to look down on their customers, or an attempt to fool anyone. It is strictly marketing, and a damn good idea in light of the current situation, IMHO.
 
Catweazle said:
Terpfen, the "Boot stalls at crcdisk.sys' issue is a rather common one, but it isn't one which is restricted to Vista SP1 or even Vista at all. Happens on more than a few XP machines as well, and it can happen as a result of quite a few causes.
Click to expand...

Then why have I installed XP on the same computer multiple times without the problem appearing? The only variable in this instance is the operating system.
 
If you installed Ubuntu 8.04 on a PC, installed all the eye candy, AWN, etc etc. Then put it on a PC calling it the next big thing, everyone would probably love it. :p At the end of the day I still end up using XP rather than Ubuntu.

I've always spoken against Vista, though not because I hate it or anything, I just dislike having to dish out $150AUD for an OEM copy or $340AUD for a retail copy of Vista when it really has nothing that I'd give a damn about other than DX10. That's about as much as what I'd pay for a new video card, but then I'd sell my old video card first so even then the new video card would be cheaper... however the new video card would give me a massive performance increase, Vista would give me almost nothing.

If I didn't have to pay that much for it, or if a retail copy was $100-150 instead of $340, I probably would have upgraded to Vista ages ago. I have had a bit of experience with it on my Dad's laptop, but that's a dell which is crushed by huge amounts of bloatware and it runs pretty poorly (it could be Vista, but I'm guessing its the bloatware :p).
 
Tudz said:
I've always spoken against Vista, though not because I hate it or anything, I just dislike having to dish out $150AUD for an OEM copy or $340AUD for a retail copy of Vista when it really has nothing that I'd give a damn about other than DX10.
Click to expand...
Oh my goodness!

You're an Aussie, who lives in a place where you can walk into Harvey Norman and purchase over the counter for ~$AU150 and no questions asked, an 'Academic Upgrade Vista Home Premium' which can be used to run out the exact same install as any other Retail Vista Home Premium, and where the 'eligibility requirements' are met purely by the fact that you are 'home schooling' yourself about how to use the thing, and you're whinging about not being able to get it for that price?

Emigrate! You don't deserve to be here!

LOL
 
Terpfen said:
If you think my computer is incapable of running Vista properly, then not only have you not been reading the thread, but you're completely unaware of Vista's performance requirements.
Click to expand...

My jab was more towards the fact that your setup is old enough that you're bound to run into SOME incompatibility problems unless you stay flexible and make some adjustments. I'm perfectly aware of the performance requirements of Vista. I run them on several computers.
 
Tudz said:
If you installed Ubuntu 8.04 on a PC, installed all the eye candy, AWN, etc etc. Then put it on a PC calling it the next big thing, everyone would probably love it. :p At the end of the day I still end up using XP rather than Ubuntu.

I've always spoken against Vista, though not because I hate it or anything, I just dislike having to dish out $150AUD for an OEM copy or $340AUD for a retail copy of Vista when it really has nothing that I'd give a damn about other than DX10. That's about as much as what I'd pay for a new video card, but then I'd sell my old video card first so even then the new video card would be cheaper... however the new video card would give me a massive performance increase, Vista would give me almost nothing.

If I didn't have to pay that much for it, or if a retail copy was $100-150 instead of $340, I probably would have upgraded to Vista ages ago. I have had a bit of experience with it on my Dad's laptop, but that's a dell which is crushed by huge amounts of bloatware and it runs pretty poorly (it could be Vista, but I'm guessing its the bloatware :p).
Click to expand...

Yeah why pay for something you use every single day for several years, like an operating system. Seems to be the least important part of your computer. Especially when you average the cost over the course of the next three years you'll likely use it bringing it down to only an aussie dollar a month for the retail copy.

WONDER SARCASM POWER.....ACTIVATE.
 
Terpfen said:
Then why have I installed XP on the same computer multiple times without the problem appearing? The only variable in this instance is the operating system.
Click to expand...

Vista wasn't created for just you, it was created for everyone and designed to work on as many machines as possible. How are you surprised that it's impossible to work flawlessly on everyone's computer? Welcome to the software industry. If you don't think Microsoft tried as hard as they could without compromising everything else then you don't understand what business they're in. This isn't just a reply to you, it's for the general naysayers.
 
Terpfen said:
Then why have I installed XP on the same computer multiple times without the problem appearing? The only variable in this instance is the operating system.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Terpfen. I meant to respond earlier but forgot to.


As said earlier, that's an understandable stance to adopt. But if it's not simply something which results from stuff you've done on the PC, and it is really hardware related, fact is that with successive Windows releases the tolerance levels for hardware 'imperfections' get tighter and manufacturers need to adhere to 'standards' more tightly. It's not something unique to Vista, and we've seen similar before. A classic example was the way XP would balk at hodgepodge RAM mismatches that Windows 98 seemed bullet-proof impervious to.

Sometimes stuff which is "not quite done right" will be fine with an earlier release but not fine with a later release. Sometimes that can be in the 'software' rather than in the actual hardware too - in device drivers or BIOS code. A BIOS update, for example, might address what's causing problems on your machine or mine.

(I haven't actually even checked to see if the mobo manufacturer has released a BIOS update to address the problems my other machine has with SATA drives under Vista, coz it's working just fine with an IDE drive and I can't be bothered looking.)

Hey? On occasion it can actually be buggy code in Windows itself which creates problems too, but that happens way more rarely than you'd think from hearing what people say. As OldPueblo just intimated, MS can only code Windows for the general playing field, and can't possibly accomodate all the ways myriads of manufacturers and their components might exploit the rules a little bit.

Shit happens, and it sucks when it does. But truth is that most of the hardware-related 'bugs' Windows patches sometimes address are really just workarounds for problems others have created. All MS can do is code for the way stuff is supposed to work, and when it doesn't work that way they cop the flack and usually have to clean up the mess.

Vista 'needs' stuff to work properly more than XP does, because Vista does more with it under the hood, so Vista is less tolerant of imperfections. Same general principle applied, although admittedly to a lesser extent, when people moved from 98 to XP. And shit that happened sometimes turned up at times of XP Service Pack releases too.



On that living room rig of mine I could've easily bitched about Vista, bunged XP back on it, and had no problem. But I didn't want XP on the thing so I simply accepted the situation, hunted for solution or workaround, and got it doing what I wanted it to do. If I'd not been able to get that hardware combo working the way I wanted it to I would've binned it, built another, and used Vista that way, because Vista itself "works".
 
OldPueblo said:
Vista wasn't created for just you, it was created for everyone and designed to work on as many machines as possible. How are you surprised that it's impossible to work flawlessly on everyone's computer? Welcome to the software industry. If you don't think Microsoft tried as hard as they could without compromising everything else then you don't understand what business they're in. This isn't just a reply to you, it's for the general naysayers.
Click to expand...

It's not always Microsoft's fault, either. People blame the OS, especially a new and unfamiliar one, for any problems they are having. Poorly written drivers or badly coded apps are the fault of the companies they come from, and not MS.

As examples:
I've had problems in the past with NVidia drivers, under XP and Vista. (NV problem, NOT MS.)
There was an incompatibility between my brother laser printer drivers and the Adobe (Acrobat) reader under XP, which is fixed in Vista. (Brother problem, NOT MS.)
Buggy, poorly coded games (I'm sure you can think of more) which have had problems under XP and Vista are the Warlords Battlecry series, HoMMV, and AoC. (Again, the software companies problem, NOT MS.)

I'm not saying MS OSs are entirely without fault, but I don't think they deserve all the bad rap they've been getting.
 
mwarps said:
I do love these idiotic vista threads, and the people who base "vista sucks" off business adoption.

I worked in a fortune 10 (yes, TEN) company a year ago. 75% of machines were still running Win2000, and some even NT4. I literally danced for joy when my personal machine had a hard drive failure and got a new drive imaged with XP.

Saying that Vista sucks because business adoption is slow is one of the most retarded things I've ever come across on the internet.
Click to expand...


Amen.

Vista will never achieve market dominance in the way XP did, because it'll never be flagship product for as long as XP was. Realistically, if Vista ever achieves more than about a one third market share, now that we have a return to a 3 year turnaround cycle, it'll be an outstanding achievement. Good grief. Windows 2000 was a huge corporate uptake success, but even that never achieved more than a 40% OS market share at best.

Vista is already a commercial success. It has somewhere around a 16% or so desktop market share at present, that will rise more and more as old system are retired from use and replaced with new ones, and it will rise even more still over the next year or two when those corporations which actually will eventually upgrade to Vista end up doing so. Not all will. It's normal and common for large corporations to 'skip' a Windows version release. Hardware bases don't really have a replacement cycle of 3 years or less in the 'average' corporate environment, and the 'average' corporation doesn't just rush to upgrade to a new OS version just for the sake of doing so, because doing so is a huge exercise in expense and logistics.

BUT!

Despite the fact that Vista is already a commercial success it does suffer somewhat of a negative image. The task is to maximise profit, so the task is to address that negative image. Thus the 'Mojave' campaign, and other exercises in PR which will inevitably follow it. Exercises in trying to maximise the potential of the OS version, before its lifespan as flagship product eventually expires.

That 'negative image' exists for one reason and one reason alone.

This time around there's a phemonenon which, effectively, simply didn't exist back when XP was released. It's the volume and disproportionate presence of the "newly unsilent minority" who make themselves heard on blogs and in forums. The folk who spout their (usually uninformed) opinion all over the place, and have an influence on public opinion which outweighs their actual numbers in comparison to the folk who silently use, enjoy and benefit from the newer OS version. That "newly unsilent minority" is all of a sudden so loud that it has impact on mainstream media reporting.

In essence, the only thing Microsoft has really done 'wrong' in relation to Vista has been the failure to anticipate or counter the volume of that noise. Without it Vista could by now have been even more of a commercial success than it has been thus far, and taking steps to counter it from this point onwards will help to realise the maximum profits Vista will generate from now on.


Terpfen said:
Mojave is basically an insult from Steve Ballmer to us.
Click to expand...
That's so close to the truth in ways you probably didn't even intend. Mojave IS an insult directed at you. If, that is, you are one of the wannabes spouting misinformation on blogs and forums.

But to the people like the many folk in this thread who have simply stated their reflections that the criticisms are unwarranted, it's just an exercise in correcting misinformation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top