Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

Windows 7: Five things Microsoft must do

By | October 27, 2008, 2:00am PDT

Summary: A lot of businesses have already decided to boycott Windows Vista and many consumers would like to skip it, too. In order to avoid the same mistakes in the next version of the operating system, there are five things Microsoft needs to do with Windows 7.

We’re going to be hearing a lot about Windows 7 over the next two weeks as Microsoft convenes its Professional Developers Conference (PDC) and the Windows Hardware Engineering Conference (WinHEC) — both in Los Angeles.

I recently discussed the five reasons why Windows Vista failed, and although Microsoft may continue to defend Vista as Steve Ballmer did at the Gartner Symposium on October 16, make no mistake that the company has already moved past Vista — psychologically and strategically.

Ballmer and company know that Vista has been rejected by businesses and that it has dreadful reputation among the general public. They know they screwed up. And Microsoft is nothing if not responsive to customers and public opinion. In fact, I’ve argued before that the company is actually hyper-responsive and that’s why they’ve crammed way too many features and way too much code into both Windows and Microsoft Office.

So how can Microsoft recover from the Vista debacle and breath life back into Windows? If nothing else, here are five things the company needs to do to start.

5. Speed it up significantly

One of the worst qualities of Windows Vista is that it is almost always slower than its predecessor Windows XP when running on the same hardware. And most of that performance drag is not simply due to the fancy graphics. Even if you turn off the Aero interface, Vista is still usually slower.

The problem is that the underlying Windows code is way too bloated — over 50 million lines of code in Vista — and even today’s ultra-fast multi-core processors can’t overcome that. The Windows development team has to find a way to streamline Windows 7 so that it’s faster and more stable than both XP and Vista, whether it’s running on netbooks and nettops with the Atom processor and only 1 GB of RAM or tomorrow’s 8-core machines with 10 GB of RAM.

That’s an extremely difficult task, but no one said this was going to be simple or easy. One way to start is by turning Windows into just the core OS and further modulizing it by making a lot of the other software such as the Media Center, Tablet PC, and Admin Tools available as downloadable add-ons.

4. Avoid compatibility problems

In the process of streamlining Windows 7, the developers can’t sacrifice software compatibility. One of the things that has killed Vista is that Microsoft spent so much effort trying making it more secure with User Access Control (UAC) that it broke a lot of software in the process.

You can argue that a lot of the stuff that broke in Windows Vista was poorly programmed to begin with and deserved to break so that it could be rewritten more securely. The problem is that not much of the software has been rewritten and the UAC approach has not worked because users get so many dialog boxes that they just blindly click OK until all of them go away. A better approach is needed — one that balances security and compatibility.

The other compatibility issue that Windows 7 has to juggle is the 32-bit vs. 64-bit split. While most modern processors are 64-bit, most of the software and device drivers are still written in 32-bit code. I’ve seen a number of PCs with 64-bit CPUs that have 32-bit Windows installed simply because it has better compatibility. I’ve also seen and heard about a number of business systems that have 64-bit Windows Vista installed, but are running into significant software and/or driver incompatibility problems.

Microsoft, Intel, and AMD need to lead the charge to get software vendors on-board with 64-bit before Windows 7 is officially released.

3. Undercut OS X on price

Mac sales have been growing much faster than the overall PC market and Mac OS X has continued to nibble away at Windows’ massive market share over the past two years. However, Apple showed the same chink in its armor that has long plagued it when it recently announced its new line of laptops and the cheapest one was priced at $999. The message being sent is that Apple wants to be a premium computer brand with high margins and has very little interest in selling low-margin, high-volume machines.

Over the next two to three years the lion’s share of the growth in computer sales is very likely going to be in the sub-$500 netbook and nettop market. These machines are essentially just glorified Web browsers in a diminuitive hardware package. The OS doesn’t matter much. As a result, Linux is a major threat to become the OS powering a lot of these machines, because of its minimal price.

However, with Apple relegating itself to the high end of the market and most users still not very comfortable with Linux, Microsoft has the opportunity to swoop in and deliver a Windows 7 that is fast and cheap and can run very well on these little machines, while also scaling all the way up to the fastest workstations. A lot of users and businesses would probably gravitate toward the idea of a common OS experience (and one that most users already know) in Windows, especially if the price is comparable between Linux and Windows machines.

The key here is making Windows very inexpensive and very scalable while preparing to sell it in larger volumes than ever before on the cheap machines that are going to flood the market over the next couple years.

2. Sell only one version

There were primarily two editions of Windows XP: Home and Professional. With Windows Vista, that doubled to four primary editions: Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, and Ultimate. It’s time to simplify and go back to just one version of Windows with one price.

This is a case of Microsoft just getting out of the way and letting Windows be Windows. Having just one edition of the client OS will make Windows 7 easier to understand, easier to purchase, and easier to support (for both Microsoft and IT departments).

Of course, the one version of Windows 7 needs to be cheaper than Mac OS X ($99), easier to use than Linux, and easier to set up and get started than any of the recent versions of Windows.

1.  Make it the last shrink-wrapped OS

The old way of building and packaging operating systems in shrink-wrapped boxes that are released every few years is just not fast enough or nimble enough to meet the demands to today’s Internet-driven computing environment. It’s also counterproductive for an OS maker because you end up competing against yourself the way XP and Vista are now competing against each other.

There’s only one Windows, and it has merely evolved over time. That’s the message Microsoft needs to drive home by making Windows 7 the last shrink-wrapped version of the OS. From here on out, Microsoft should simply make Windows a constantly evolving platform with new features and functionality enhancements added several times a year through Windows Update.

The business model would be to turn this into a subscription product, albeit a very inexpensive one. As long as you have a current Windows subscription then you can continue to download new features, patches, and updates. If your subscription lapses then Windows still works but you can no longer download the new stuff, or any add-ons, and you can only download highly critical security patches.

For enterprises that are currently using Software Assurance, they are already buying Windows as part of a subscription so there would be no change in the business model for them.  For consumers and small businesses who aren’t part of Software Assurance and typically buy Windows from OEMs such as Dell, Toshiba,  and Hewlett-Packard, the Windows license that comes with their PC could last for three years and then it’s up to the buyer to pay something like $30-$40/year to renew. For those who want to build their own system, a full version of the OS could cost something like $50-$75 for the first year.

Bottom line

Windows 7 needs to be fast, inexpensive, and widely compatible. Microsoft also needs to change the development and business models to make Windows one continually evolving OS.

Let’s face it, the OS is not as flashy as it once was. It’s also not nearly as relevant as it was a decade ago. The Web browser is gradually usurping its position as the most important application platform, as has long been predicted.

Because of that, Windows is at a crossroads where it could begin losing large chunks of market share to competitors that are better prepared to operate in this new reality, or it can greatly simplify its OS while turning into more of a background utility that makes good money off of a low-margin, high-volume business.

If it can pull that off and clearly communicate to businesses and consumers that Windows 7 is the start of a new approach to Windows then Windows 7 could be a watershed release. If Microsoft simply releases a mild revision to Vista and maintains the same development and business models, then Windows could become more vulnerable to its competitors than it’s been in almost two decades.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Jason Hiner is the Editor in Chief of TechRepublic. He writes about the products, people, and ideas that are revolutionizing business with technology.

Disclosure

Jason Hiner

Jason Hiner has nothing to disclose. He doesn't hold investments in the technology companies he covers.

Biography

Jason Hiner

Jason Hiner is the Editor in Chief of TechRepublic, an online trade publication and peer-to-peer community for IT leaders. He is an award-winning journalist who examines the latest trends and asks the big questions about the technology industry. He previously worked as an IT manager in the health care industry.

You can also find him on Twitter, , Facebook, and at JasonHiner.com.

110
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Windows 7: Five things Microsoft needs to do
FAULKNE 13th Oct
Good day to confirm this comment I would appreciate T h e b e s t o f Z D N e t d e l i v e r e d your website very nice to everyone Yes, Oracle is the only one with shared-disk architecture, but that is there advantage. It means you can add or remove nodes and the database lives on. In a shared nothing architecture, if you lose a node, you lose the system. I'm sure Oracle appreciates EMC highlighting their advantage.I also desire to signal in your RSS feeds. Thank you as soon as once again and maintain up the great operate Awesome post! Thank you very much || thanks for nice content this is really benefit to me.
0 Votes
+ -
Should Windows go incremental?
JMHtech 27th Oct 2008
Would you welcome more incremental updates to the OS rather than a big release every few years? Why or why not?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Windows 7: Five things Microsoft needs to do
Ammalgam Updated - 27th Oct 2008
Great article.

I don't think the incremental approach would work well
for most consumers because the type of updates that
would potentially need to be rolled out between major
versions of Windows would take too long.

We went from CD's to DVD's with Windows Vista.

While it can be argued that the code is bloated, it
would still take way to long to roll out major updates
to an OS via updates.

They are too large and you can not assume everyone has
broadband.

Oh, and that would be fun when they fail halfway...

(nightmare)..

Onuora Amobi
CEO, Nnigma inc.
www.amobi.com
www.windows-vista-update.com
0 Votes
+ -
Interesting
timiteh Updated - 27th Oct 2008
Your approach related to the signficant evolution of Windows business model is interesting but i don't think that this could happen with Windows 7 which will be more or less a significantly,hopefully, improved version of Vista.

However, Microsoft should consider such approach with their next major O.S which will hopefully use virtualization for any kind of backward compatibility.

Moreover, i don't think that web browsers will be able to replace true O.S for virtually everything anytime soon. For once because browsers are too limited and second because they will need to become much more O.S like to be effectively able to replace them.
At this point one could argue that what O.S need to do is to acquire some Web browser capabilities ,such as be able to run Web applications by completely bypassing web browsers, to keep their relevance.

I personally think that the right approach is the one of Microsoft with the software+services concept thus the user can stay productive even if it is offline.

And finally i don't know if it is a good idea or even it is even possible for Microsoft to release only one version of Windows because of entities such as E.U.
E.U is the reason of the release of the absurd N editions whom know seem to want.
One could wonder why EU don't force Apple to release a Mac OS X without browser or any kind of application which could represent an unfair advantage compared to competitors too.
0 Votes
+ -
Will, since your last article...
Sleeper Service Updated - 27th Oct 2008
...was lambasted because of it's somewhat dodgy supporting evidence - in particular where you accused Vista of being slow in comparison to XP by quoting a CNET article released in 2007 when SP1 was pre-Beta - I'm going to take this one with a pinch of salt too.

But it's a slow day so what the hell..

"One of the worst qualities of Windows Vista is that it is almost always slower than its predecessor Windows XP when running on the same hardware."

Blatantly untrue. Here's an article where the journalist actually did some research.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2328909,00.asp

Also, here's the benchmarks proving it:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302500,00.asp

So, once again, you're shown to be at best off the pace in terms of tech reporting or at worst someone with an agenda. I'll leave it up to your readership to determine which of the two applies.

"One of the things that has killed Vista is that Microsoft spent so much effort trying making it more secure with User Access Control (UAC) that it broke a lot of software in the process."

Again untrue. This was largely due to incompatible drivers, something that hasn't been an issue for over six months. If UAC is an issue then it can be switched off although I wouldn't recommend this. I'd also point out that every change of OS has compatibility problems - this was certaily the case when we switched from NT to XP on our corporate platform.

"3. Undercut OS X on price"

Since you can't install OSX on anything other than Apple hardware they do. As such your comments about the netbook market are irrelevant because Apple don't operate in that space.

"There were primarily two editions of Windows XP: Home and Professional. With Windows Vista, that doubled to four primary editions: Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, and Ultimate. It?s time to simplify and go back to just one version of Windows with one price."

I largely agree with this one. Windows 7 should be modular with the option to install additional features as required on top of a core product.

That said, I'm unaware of anyone whose actually been confused by Vista's variants.

"1. Make it the last shrink-wrapped OS"

I agree with this.

So some good points and some bad. A step above the last article but you need to drop the whole 'Vista failed' thing especially when your statements aren't backed up by fact.
0 Votes
+ -
huh? curious
TedKraan 27th Oct 2008
...was lambasted because of it's somewhat dodgy supporting evidence - in particular where you accused Vista of being slow in comparison to XP by quoting a CNET article released in 2007 when SP1 was pre-Beta - I'm going to take this one with a pinch of salt too.

But it's a slow day so what the hell..

"One of the worst qualities of Windows Vista is that it is almost always slower than its predecessor Windows XP when running on the same hardware."

Blatantly untrue. Here's an article where the journalist actually did some research.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2328909,00.asp


Vista was slower at the time the referenced article was written. Vista was as fast or faster at the time the article you yourself referenced was written.

So saying Blatantly untrue is negating factual findings from the past.

Par Example: It's the same like saying Bill Clinton is the US President. It was true at some stage in the past.
0 Votes
+ -
And it claims Vista is slower than XP even though the benchmarks provided show it to be just as fast or slightly faster.

I am constantly amazed at how these urban legends continue to make the rounds. I've run Vista Ultimate on a P4 1.6GHz system with 1GB of RAM. Its performance was perfectly acceptable for general use.
0 Votes
+ -
Because it's not an urban legend
Linux User 147560 27th Oct 2008
especially since it seems to be a pretty common complaint from a lot of people around the country. devil
...make it true. Nor does repeating something ad nauseam make it true. Yet that's just what the clueless think. So they persist.

Now Sleeper Service provided a link to some benchmarks. Have you had a chance to review them? In those three benchmarks Vista SP1 outperformed or matched XP SP3. Those are solid numbers showing Vista can keep pace with XP. Now I'm sure you can find some numbers showing the opposite. So what does that prove? What we would expect to see. Some OSes are faster ar some tasks whereas others are faster at other tasks.
0 Votes
+ -
Actually...
TedKraan 27th Oct 2008
That's the reason i dodged SP3 for XP.
0 Votes
+ -
If you want XP just for speed
TedKraan 28th Oct 2008
dodge SP3.
0 Votes
+ -
Clueless masses?
Linux User 147560 Updated - 27th Oct 2008
I am sure this fellow would argue the difference... that was the first hit from using "complaints of Vista being slow" in Google.

The proof is out there....

devil

Edit - Fixed first link... forgot the =
0 Votes
+ -
...see the article is pre-SP1 release:

ttp://www.vistareview.info/2007/12/10/windows-vista-sp1-just-as-slow/

So I repeat:

Just because the clueless masses repeat something doesn't make it true. Nor does repeating something ad nauseam make it true. Yet that's just what the clueless think. So they persist.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_bench_2008&num=1

The answer appears to be "Yes". Seems Microsoft isn't the only one guilty of releasing an OS that may not perform at the same level as the previous version(s).

I await your spin.
0 Votes
+ -
.....
Linux User 147560 27th Oct 2008
Sounds like Canonical needs to do a bit of werk... and since I don't use any of the *buntu's, I don't really care. OpenSuSE on the other hand seems in my experience to be getting faster and sleeker. devil

And if you want a spin... head down to the laundry mat...
0 Votes
+ -
Is Ubuntu not Linux?

OpenSuSE on the other hand seems in my experience to be getting faster and sleeker.

Key word highlighted. Where have we heard something like this before? LOL! You got owned!
0 Votes
+ -
Gee the same logic you
Linux User 147560 27th Oct 2008
applied can be used to Vista Ultimate and Vista Home. Education time numb nutz

Linux is the kernel nothing more nothing less.
The distribution is all the goodies packed on top. So your assertion that Ubuntu is Linux is off base. It uses GNU/Linux kernel and tools but adds it's own package manager, a default desktop and other goodies. This is what differentiates distributions from each other.

When you finally learn that Linux is not OpenSuSE or Ubuntu or Red Hat but actually the underlying kernel they use as a base then MAYBE you will start to understand Linux.

So no, you didn't "own" anyone. devil
0 Votes
+ -
For the Linux User
ShadowGIATL 27th Oct 2008
"Linux is the kernel nothing more nothing less.
The distribution is all the goodies packed on top. So your assertion that Ubuntu is Linux is off base. It uses GNU/Linux kernel and tools but adds it's own package manager, a default desktop and other goodies. This is what differentiates distributions from each other."

Without the stuff that is added for the distros... really just makes Linux on par with MS-DOS. People hated using command lines even when it was all they had. Without all the extras, the average user is not going to be interested in taking a step back in time.

For this reason, users see Linux as the whole package that comes in a distro, and not just the kernel. Lets face it, without the GUI and other tools you might as well crank up Unix without X Windows.

Until the Linux community wakes up and realizes consumers don't what what the developers think is best for them and start listening to what consumers want, you're not going to gain ground. Apple has struggled to gather 5% of marketshare using the "I know best" method and almost disappeared completely more then once.

Linux makes great servers. No one can argue that. Their lower marketshare makes them a smaller target. But they suck as a general purpose desktop for the masses. A consumer wants a computer to make them feel smarter, not dumber. Linux just isn't straight forward to 'joe the plumber'.

So who cares if its Ubuntu or Kbuntu, or Red freaking Hat. The irony is SUSE actually got its start from Microsoft. Before they mae Windows they developed a version of Unix called Xenix. As bad as you might not want to hear it, the evil monopoly helped contribute code the the very OS you use today.

Feel warm and fuzy inside now? Don't believe me? Look it up.

Attacking Vista's crappy UAC, too many editions, and other things of these nature are perfectly understandable. However it really gets old hearing how horrible something is simply because it says so on the internet.

If you believed everything on the net then you wouldn't be here complaining they are wrong all the time.

I'm sure by now everyone has heard your opinion on why you use Linux. Now let them decide why they do or do not.

But should you really want to continue and compare Vista with Linux, then please provide actual data to back up your claims. Simply stating your experience with XP and Linux on similar machines is not evidience that Vista sucks.

It sucks to you. We hear you. Move on.
0 Votes
+ -
@ShadowGIATL
Linux User 147560 Updated - 28th Oct 2008
"Linux is the kernel nothing more nothing less.
The distribution is all the goodies packed on top. So your assertion that Ubuntu is Linux is off base. It uses GNU/Linux kernel and tools but adds it's own package manager, a default desktop and other goodies. This is what differentiates distributions from each other.
"

?Without the stuff that is added for the distros... really just makes Linux on par with MS-DOS. People hated using command lines even when it was all they had. Without all the extras, the average user is not going to be interested in taking a step back in time.

For this reason, users see Linux as the whole package that comes in a distro, and not just the kernel. Lets face it, without the GUI and other tools you might as well crank up Unix without X Windows.

Until the Linux community wakes up and realizes consumers don't what what the developers think is best for them and start listening to what consumers want, you're not going to gain ground. Apple has struggled to gather 5% of marketshare using the "I know best" method and almost disappeared completely more then once.
?

And yet Apple is growing despite it's controlling attitude. Fiscally they are doing quite well. The rest I can't really comment on.

?Linux makes great servers. No one can argue that. Their lower marketshare makes them a smaller target. But they suck as a general purpose desktop for the masses. A consumer wants a computer to make them feel smarter, not dumber. Linux just isn't straight forward to 'joe the plumber'.?

But I don't see that as being true. Especially since I took a small portion of time to teach people how to use their PC's, both Linux and Windows. It's amazing how much a little guidance helps. Most Windows users get themselves in trouble and have many of the same issues with Windows as they would with Linux. Especially now with the modern distributions out there.

?So who cares if its Ubuntu or Kbuntu, or Red freaking Hat. The irony is SUSE actually got its start from Microsoft. Before they mae Windows they developed a version of Unix called Xenix. As bad as you might not want to hear it, the evil monopoly helped contribute code the the very OS you use today.?

Actually no, SuSE did not get it's start from Microsoft. They got their start in Germany in 1992 as a UNIX consulting group. SuSE is an acronym for the German phrase Software- und System-Entwicklung which means software and system development. It was first released in 1994 as SLS/Slackware. In 1996 after integrating with the Jurix distribution S.u.S.E. Linux 4.2 was released.

As time passed and they matured SuSE started to integrate from Red Hat the RPM package system and /etc/sysconfig. It was in 2003 that Novell bought SuSE and changed the name from SuSE to SuSE Linux. So nowhere in that history does Microsoft give SuSE or OpenSuSE a start.

?Feel warm and fuzy inside now? Don't believe me? Look it up.?

No I don't believe you because I have been using Linux since 1999 and have followed it's growth and history since then. Also the deal with Microsoft was an agreement not to sue for patent infringement.

?Attacking Vista's crappy UAC, too many editions, and other things of these nature are perfectly understandable. However it really gets old hearing how horrible something is simply because it says so on the internet.?

And personal experience doesn't count as well? While I have not directly been afflicted with the abomination of Vista, I have seen it first hand from my co-workers and boss. Many of which have either moved to Mac, Linux or upgraded to Windows XP Pro.

?If you believed everything on the net then you wouldn't be here complaining they are wrong all the time.

I'm sure by now everyone has heard your opinion on why you use Linux. Now let them decide why they do or do not.
?

I don't believe everything on the net but when you see enough of the same information that is from differing parts of the world, differing cultures and value systems, then it lends credibility to it. If you want Linux users to stop then the other camp needs to as well. The lies about Linux are getting old and the rehash of problems long since fixed is rather tedious.

?But should you really want to continue and compare Vista with Linux, then please provide actual data to back up your claims. Simply stating your experience with XP and Linux on similar machines is not evidience that Vista sucks.?

Are you going to pay for Vista for me to test out? All the various version that are available? And of course the hardware to run it on too.

?It sucks to you. We hear you. Move on.?

It sucks to a lot of people. devil
0 Votes
+ -
Ye...
914four 28th Oct 2008
Just because the clueless masses repeat something doesn't make it true. Nor does repeating something ad nauseam make it true. Yet that's just what the clueless think. So they persist.

It's worked well for Microsoft though. How many people out there believe that Active Directory is an LDAP?
And yet, here you are, repeating your same statements again and again...
0 Votes
+ -
Well since what he actually wrote was:
Sleeper Service Updated - 27th Oct 2008
From the first article:

"This software bloat has had the effect of slowing down Windows Vista, especially when it?s running on anything but the latest and fastest hardware. Even then, the latest version of Windows XP soundly outperforms the latest version of Microsoft Vista. No one wants to use a new computer that is slower than their old one."

When quite clearly he wasn't comparing the latest versions of the two at the time of writing I'd say it's pretty cut and dried, wouldn't you?

Especially when it's compounded by the following from the current article:

"One of the worst qualities of Windows Vista is that it is almost always slower than its predecessor Windows XP when running on the same hardware."

So either Jason isn't learning or doesn't want to. Perhaps he can enlighten us as to which it is? Of course he may point out comparisons using hardware that is years old but what relevance does that have? Precisely none.
0 Votes
+ -
Or...
914four 28th Oct 2008
...he's reflecting the reality of the situation. Poll your non-computer industry friends and family and ask what their machine is. Chances are they have less than 2GB of RAM; on those boxes Vista will be slower. On a new machine with 4GB RAM, Vista will most likely run faster than XP SP3, but it's debatable vs XP SP2. Question is, could MS have slowed XP with SP3 to tilt the scales? Not implying anything, just wondering...
0 Votes
+ -
Still... for netbooks
Michael Kelly 27th Oct 2008
I would not want that kind of bloat. Something that could be trimmed down would be preferable. And I would still have a hard time believing that multimedia performance would be acceptable in a netbook unless performance enhancements were made.

The folks at Ubuntu Eee have got the right idea on how to take a general operating system distribution and tweak it to fit the needs of a netbook user. But they can do it because the nature of Linux distributions is to be more modular. So rather than have a goal of "speed things up" which may not be necessary based on the benchmarks, I think a more realistic goal ought to be to make Windows 7 more modular to make it more flexible to today's computing needs. If they do that then these so-called speed issues (and I agree, I doubt they exist on a well-tuned Vista machine) will dissipate.

I do agree with your comments on #2 and #3, however #1 is kind of a toss up. MS needs to improve upon its release structure, and a subscription based structure is one way to do that, however there are ways they can keep the shrink wrapped method (or transform that to a downloadable upgrade) and make improvements. Also I see a danger of MS wanting to overcharge for a subscription, and that could unintentionally send their best customers fleeing with no intention to ever come back.
0 Votes
+ -
Interesting...
914four 28th Oct 2008
...that the "Journalist" for your referenced article posted anonymously. I'm not sure I would give credence to him over someone who posts both his name and photograph with his work.

I thought the article was well written and fair, and since the mean out there is still 2.x GHz machine with 1GB RAM, I remain unconvinced that Vista is faster than XP. Install Vista on a machine with 4GB of RAM and it will most likely be faster, but then XP won't be using half the memory. True, memory is cheap and most new systems should include 4GB RAM, but you'd be amazed how many don't.
0 Votes
+ -
Huh? What are you on?
Anselot 27th Oct 2008
While I agree on the compatibility issues I also understand that this does not fall to Microsoft but to the software companies that have not updated there code to enable the OS to run more secure. And I also know that Microsoft is offering the Windows Vista Business Assurance Program for free tech support to ensure businesses are able to upgrade without all the headaches you seem to be going through. You really should check yourself on thinking that all the new features and security measures are too much for us Users. As a User I enjoy all the new features and find Vista so much easier to use and install than any other operating system currently on the market. Especially with FREE tech support.

And what planet are you on? Not everyone out there has broadband nor can they afford to keep paying for a piece of software that they already shelled out for. "Shrink Wrap" is the only way to sell a product where your version seems to require you to keep paying for it like its an addiction instead of a computer.
0 Votes
+ -
Duh! What are you on?
rtreitner Updated - 27th Oct 2008
Your blaming the software companies for windows putting out a very bad OS that didn't even support current software used widely everywhere including on their own existing version? That takes the cake! Vista was never made more secure, it was made to be annoying, and that is from them. Windows even dropped a lot of hardware support for stuff, even newer speakers were left out in the cold, get a clue. Lastly their support couldn't find their own head in their own shorts. Most stuff they still won't address unless you pay extra, even then they can't answer a thing. You must work for them or had a head injury, but don't worry with treatment reality might sink in.
0 Votes
+ -
"Your" or "You are"
Cyberpundit 26th Nov 2008
Please make sure you understand how to use these two words/phrases. It's a bane of the modern generation not to know this simple difference.
0 Votes
+ -
You hit the nail on the head with this one. You should mail this to Microsoft.
0 Votes
+ -
Agreed...
914four 28th Oct 2008
... and I sent the link to one of my contacts there.
0 Votes
+ -
In PCs with independent Graphic Cards, Aero pushes out a lot of the work to the Graphics Card. If you turn it off, the graphic work has to be done by the OS. And when you add more work to the OS, it gets slower.

Obviously, this isn't what happens when you have integrated graphics (mostly low end desktops and entry level laptops). But this article makes it sound like Aero is to blame for slowness. Probably on purpose.
0 Votes
+ -
welll . . .
CobraA1 Updated - 27th Oct 2008
#5 is a nice goal, but that's always been the case. Usually that doesn't stay a problem very long because hardware keeps improving.

#4 is nice, but confusing two concepts.

UAC did not introduce compatibility problems. It was the driver model rewrite that did. They rewrote the graphics and sound stuff, so those had a lot of problems at first.

64 bit drivers are plentiful now, and it's much less of a problem than Vista's first release.

I've yet to encounter regular, non-driver software that is incompatible with my 64 bit system.

Totally agreed that they need to do something about the "click OK blindness" in UAC. It still appears way too often.

#3 agreed, but I'm not holding my breath.

#2 agreed.

#1 you're just being silly. They can still sell it in boxes, but you're right, it should be modular so they can stick to smaller changes instead of having to do overhauls.

And to be honest I never liked the idea of subscription software. I don't know why people like you are so obsessed with it. It's not really that great of a model.

"The Web browser is gradually usurping its position as the most important application platform, as has long been predicted."

Whatever. The web still needs an OS to run on, and you'll always need something to manage all of your devices. And frankly, there's no good reason to webify everything. Sure, some things like email make sense, but other things don't make so much sense as a web app. I think the OS is a lot more relevant than the "web 2.0" crowd believes it is.
0 Votes
+ -
I've recently started playing with Ubuntu. Other than the fact that the interface is a bit wooden, it works. However, I find it unusable because there are not enough drivers available.

That's only because not enough people are using Linux. If we can get enough people to install it and use it, therefore making it economically necessary for vendors to create Linux drivers for their devices we can forget about paying for Window$ and Mac O$.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: MS needs to refund and re-price
josephrot@... 27th Oct 2008
Microsoft months ago needs to start refunding the vastly over-priced Vista to users as a hefty refund of about half the purchase price. Then drop the price of Windows XP Pro to $99 $US and XP Home to $69 $US.

Vista was a clear scam on the American public and world, and MS should truly be ashamed of themselves, if not their apparent greed.
0 Votes
+ -
The OS as a commodity item
maferious 27th Oct 2008
The OS has now become a commodity item. The fact that Microsoft has failed to realize this has left them in an awful position. Applications have always been the key to success, and while OEM software has always been always nice butter on the bread, the applications have made it a BLT. Microsoft's big problem comes when companies choose to write software for other platforms (usually targeting multiple OSs)... that makes Microsoft's software in general less profitable, because Microsoft only supports Windows (yes, there are a few minor exceptions).. to an extent Microsoft is addressing this, with technologies such as .NET (the CLR), allowing more M$ software to run wherever (but obviously they ensure it runs perfectly on Windows, whereas other ports may require hacks). Right now, momentum is the big thing keeping Microsoft in the game.. A company might have 500 Windows support & development people, and only 20 Linux/UNIX.. and you can't change that overnight.

As a long time Linux user, I have seen how remote updates can work very well, and cause minimal problems (most of which could've been caught with more thorough testing), so I'm all for a modular approach. Simplify the software stack to have fewer interdependencies and have a bare bones Windows system from the word go. Don't restrict certain basic requirements such as "language pack" to different versions - have the real core stuff be modular and freely downloadable & upgradable. The OS is a commodity - don't pretend otherwise, for it will only hurt your business in the long term. And for those users without a regular network connection... well, security issues will only affect a minority of them, since the most common threats nowadays come from networks.. and there are (or should be) alternate ways to upgrade to the latest versions.. Hmm.. just a thought: maybe an upgrade option at boot-time, so your system can start in a limited (and safe!) mode when you connect to the Internet for the first time in 10 months.

For Windows getting slower... so long as the kernel and the core libraries are rock solid and are getting faster (if they're not, somebody should be shot), then the speed loss comes from more complicated (or poorly optimized) applications.. and Windows should make it obvious that it's the application that's slow and/or poorly written.. Kind of the Google Chrome philosophy - lay blame where blame's due.

Also, an application or a service should never be able to crash your system (yes, a lot better nowadays).. But aside from that, the OS should step out of the way and let the applications do their thing. If I want an application that bypasses the firewall and opens 1000 TCP connections in 5 seconds (ie. P2P), I should be able to have that easily (and on any windows system).. it needn't be easy (eg. a single click) to bypass basic security, but it should be possible and reasonably obvious. Power users know how to right click, after all.
0 Votes
+ -
""boycott windows vista"....you weasel-worder!
Feldwebel Wolfenstool 27th Oct 2008
..try..."XP Pro is so good, they don't feel the need to up-grade". Go take a journalism course, and learn to write without your personal bias SHINING thru.
0 Votes
+ -
Pot, this is the kettle...
914four 28th Oct 2008
... perhaps a mirror is in order.
0 Votes
+ -
Biased?
ShadowGIATL 28th Oct 2008
If everyone on here didn't have an opinion this forum would be pretty blank. Having an opinion is one thing though, and claiming your opinion is the allmighty word is another however.

Doesn't appear you have many followers so I'm going to stand over here in the battlefield with the Win, Mac, and Lin fanboys where it's safer.
0 Votes
+ -
Fix #4 & #5 Are In a Natural Conflict
dagilleland@... 27th Oct 2008
You might want to note that the reason Vista is
bloated (which you want fixed in item #5) is precisely
because of something closely related to item #4:
Compatibility.

True, in item #4 you mention software compatibility,
but an OS must support -hardware- compatibility as
well.

The fact that Windows tries so hard to honor backwards
compatibility for both software & hardware is a huge
part of its bloat. And, since we all want so many
different flavors and combinations of hardware &
software, we must realize we can't have it both ways.
If you want it to "slice & dice" in the kitchen &
shingle your roof too, you better expect it to be
complex (and big).

-----
(addendum - pseudo-related)

Now, I know someone will say "but Linux and other *nix
OSes are lean and support wide hardware/software
configurations." That's only partially true.

First, Windows supports the widest set of combinations
by far - much more than any single *nix install can
do. If you don't believe me, then try installing most
of your Windows software on a *nix box.

Secondly, *nix OSes are seldom all "out-of-the-box"
ready; you almost always need to make some tweaks,
unless you are running a pretty bare-bones setup. And,
you would have to do much research & hunting for
yourself.

Third, if you want to go *nix, then you better be
ready to be your computer's security guard, and find
those patches on your own (at least some of the time).

BTW, if you've read this far, I don't want you
thinking that *nix OSes are bad - they are actually
quite good (and fast, and small, and reliable). But
they aren't really for novices. Novices should go for
Apple or Windows; they should only go to *nix if they
are willing to "change the oil" on their own.
0 Votes
+ -
I had to give up on my first MP3
TedKraan 27th Oct 2008
player back in the days. Because of the shift from windows 95 to 98.

You could say "Well, hardware manufacturer's fault cause he didn't deliver a new driver."

But they wouldn't need to write a new driver, would they? Cause 98 would be backwards compatible.

I could have opted to get an extra Linux box (because it would work on Linux) but i couldn't be bothered at the time.

to cut to the chase: Backward compatiblity in Windows is mediocre at best.
0 Votes
+ -
...when Microsoft was trying to get developers to write code for Windows. Their big pitch was "write once, run forever". That dream didn't last very long.
0 Votes
+ -
Fool me once...
User07734 27th Oct 2008
Shame on you!

Fool me twice...

Shame on ME!
0 Votes
+ -
My one killer feature...
JJ Brannon 27th Oct 2008
Total backwards compatibility from 16-bit forward under one 64-bit Windows OS.

Why should I need to download a third-party emulator/virtualization app such as DOSBox when MicroSoft owns all the original code?

JJB
0 Votes
+ -
out of the box ready...
User07734 27th Oct 2008
So far, I've seen greater out of box readiness from Linux Mint than XP.

That includes hardware drivers and software. No hunting. Much easier for a novice than XP ever was.
0 Votes
+ -
Good point/bad point
dusanmal 27th Oct 2008
With the story-related bloat comment you are very close to the very important point which MS have not resolved with success. Now, I'd claim Linux has solved it in a proper way, but than I stumble on your *nix part of the argument. I'll not argue much, but you have not seen new Linux in last few years or you wouldn't make comments about tweaking and upgrades. Every major Linux distribution now has completely automated OS AND software update system (imagine Windows update that at the same time upgrades all your installed software,...). As for tweaking: distributions have evolved to cover every niche, including complete tweak-free cases for complete novices (I'd say that if non-tech-savvy 10 yr old can install and use Linux from scratch, it have become hassle-free. I have exactly such nephew who did exactly that without any help). Hence the popularity of Ubuntu which addresses exactly that part of the crowd.
0 Votes
+ -
At #1: Ah yes, the Microsoft tax system! happy Brilliant.
...and with the world from Microsoft's point of view. Suggestions #3 & #2 are especially contradictory. In a business where the incremental cost of production is almost zero, pricing is not about cost, but about "value" to an individual consumer. The reason there are 6 different flavors of Windows is because different consumers are willing to pay different prices for basically the same thing. Most business and power users are not as price sensitive to spending $300 for an OS as the "value" consumer who considers $500 for an entire PC a lot of money. By offering only one version of Windows at one price, Microsoft loses out on sales to the consumers at the low end, and cheats themselves out of the extra revenue from those able and willing to pay much more at the high end.

My guess is that with a more modularized Windows (Suggestion #1), we???ll likely see even more versions of Windows, or perhaps a very inexpensive "core", with each module (Media Center, Server, Tablet, Laptop, Gaming, etc) sold separately. (Suggestion #5) Eventually the marketing brain trust at Microsoft will figure that this approach is too confusing for average consumers, so they???ll end up bundling modules and in the end will be selling Windows 7 the same way they sell Vista. Expect to see at least 3 of 4 dozen new SKUs out of Redmond by late next year.
0 Votes
+ -
MS can do as it pleases
dfolk2 27th Oct 2008
A monopolist does not need to be responsive to their customers, they can dictate to them. Evidence: look at MS's history. Did customers ask for a very slow, buggy, DRM laden operating system? No, but it worked for MS, so that is what we ended up with (Vista). Did customers ask for an office suite that had to be relearned from the ground up, that would not even save the file in the format the customer wanted as the default? No, but MS didn't care, they forced upon the customer that which worked for MS, and we got office 2007.
These are small examples of why anti trust laws are essential for maintaining industries in which monopolists cannot simply dictate to the market.
0 Votes
+ -
You aren't really this clueless are you?
No_Ax_to_Grind 27th Oct 2008
"further modulizing it by making a lot of the other software such as the Media Center, Tablet PC, and Admin Tools available as downloadable add-ons."

These do NOT load in memory or slow Windows down unless you call the apps. So what if they are on the hard drive ready in case you want/need them. Drive spacve is cheap and I don't care if the hard drive costs $5 more to have it all handy.
0 Votes
+ -
services you don't need
knopf@... 27th Oct 2008
It is my humble opinion that any service with a startup set for 'Automatic' has to reside in memory.
Good day to confirm this comment I would appreciate T h e b e s t o f Z D N e t d e l i v e r e d your website very nice to everyone Yes, Oracle is the only one with shared-disk architecture, but that is there advantage. It means you can add or remove nodes and the database lives on. In a shared nothing architecture, if you lose a node, you lose the system. I'm sure Oracle appreciates EMC highlighting their advantage.I also desire to signal in your RSS feeds. Thank you as soon as once again and maintain up the great operate Awesome post! Thank you very much || thanks for nice content this is really benefit to me.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix