Microsoft admits Vista failure

Way to go Microsuck!!!

Um, you are showing true signs of Fanboyism....

Microsoft hasn't and will never admit it's a failure.

When you post a link and title it "Microsoft Admits Vista Failure" try next time to make sure that your source actually admits to what you are claiming.

Notice I never said Vista WASN'T a failure, just pointing out that Microsoft didn't say it was a failure as your link and the article implies.

He posted a link from the Inquirer. I'm sure he was joking, just like the article from the Onion the other day. If serious... well, then, there's a problem.

Fanboyism?!? How? If you think I'm an Apple guy, you're sadly mistaken. I run only XP on my machines with the exception of one, which runs Linux.

I don't really believe everything the Inquirer writes because it is afterall, an internet tabloid. HOWEVER, if Vista truely isn't such a flop, why on Earth would Microsoft FORCE computer manufacturers to sell only computers with Vista? Why on Earth would Dell go against MS and start offering XP on their machines again?!? Why would Dell start offering Linux on their machines?!? Obviously, there's got to be some truth to it.

I've actually read this from more reputable sorces, I just can't find the links....

Microsoft always "forces" manufacturers to sell their latest OS. It's business afterall. And in the past Sellers have gone against the grain (Windows ME for example). This really is nothing new.

Microsoft has back peddled every single time when it comes to ending support for one of its OS's because vendors complain. It did it for Windows95, 98, ME, 2000, and now XP. This really just isn't anything new but your article and your presentation of it would make you think that Microsoft came out and publicly announced that Vista was complete junk etc. Which they didn't.

It's called FUD and usually fanboys of one sort or another spread it.

That's all I'm saying.

Then I'll say it
Vista is junk.

Microsoft will be hurting from this in the coming year.

Bill: "Let's make Windows look cooler!"
Devs: "Ok."
Bill: "Make windows fly around the screen and more difficult to use, but look cooler!"
Devs: "That will decrease productivity."
Bill: "Make all sorts of shit translucent because it looked cool in Minority Report!"
Devs: "That will decrease productivity."
Bill: "I don't care, cool = $$$!"

Not any more. The consumer is a bit wiser these days, and they are seeing that requiring a Cray Supercomuter just to make the interface look cool doesn't equal productivity and enjoyment of the OS. Apple got it right, because they sell the system behind the OS. Vista will fail because (yet again) Microsoft took a legacy OS and just started tacking millions of lines of code onto it to... make it look cool, and assumed everyone would go buy a new PC just to do what they have been doing with XP and 2K for the last 8 years, only slower.

The good parts, the new file system (WinFS), managed code? Scrapped because they couldn't get it to work with old architecture. They focused on the UI (Aero), and figured that would be cool enough to sell it.

Well I don't think they are going to do it. Bookmark this and see how sales are in a year.

Guys,

Read my first post. I'm not disagreeing, but the title is extremely misleading and it struck a nerve is all.

Interesting how, two days ago (April 26), MS announced that they would provide mainstream support for XP until 2009 and then provide extended support for it until 2014.

No it's not. Microsoft has done that with every single OS they ever produced. They drum up a scare tactic with the OEMS by setting a "deadline" for an OS, then a year or so before that actual deadline, after the OEM starts migrating to their new OS, they relax the deadline.

They've done this every single time.

Same shit was said the first year of XP. How did that go? I'm not saying Vista will fail or be a success because I ain't buying it until it's been out for a year (just like all the previous versions), but it's once again way to premature to have this conversation. And I'm with Samueul. Not only was the link provided from a crappy tabloid that makes up 99% of the crap they print, but Microsoft has and will never say Vista is a failure (even if it is).

I have been researching the development of Windows Vista for quite some time. Through various interviews on Microsoft's Channel 9 and several white papers, I've found that Vista has been a step in the right direction. In 2003 Microsoft began their initiative of Trustworthy Computing and the implementation of SDLC (Secure Development Lifecycle), where by the top-to-bottom approach to development will always have security in mind.
Vista was in development for 3 years and released builds similar to the practice Linux Distros use, called Community Technical Previews builds- on a frequency as often as monthly- for testers and developers to use. There are over 9000 drivers built for Vista and if 3 years wasn't enough time for developers to prepare for the changes in Kernel and User Mode Driver Framework- it's their fault. The introduction of Least Priveleged Access means that 3rd party developers are going to have to go back to school to learn how to program correctly. User Account Control isn't just a nag screen, it's literally running you in least-priveleged mode until you need elevated priveleges.

As far as hardware requirements, Vista also changed their compatibility campaign to say that all functionality will be retained if you install it on a pc that currently runs XPsp2 but if you want to take advantage of the improved graphics, yes, you do need a more current video card. (but Linux flavors require higher in video cards to run their fluffy guis as well, such as the Beryl gui)

I suggest reading up on MS security http://download.microsoft.com/download/c...aSecurityWP.doc

and learn about changes in the Kernel, ASLR, Bitlocker, IE7, driver framework, EFS, 64-bit computing, driver signing... etc.

I just finished writing a paper for a graduate class on the subject. Good stuff.
We wanted security and Microsoft gave it to us.

Watch this:
http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=294410

What part of Vista makes computing better/faster/easier/more productive than previous versions of Windows ?

None of it. Why upgrade?

I couldn't agree more!!! The only thing that Vista has that XP doesn't (other than the nifty Aero skins) is DirectX 10. But, now that that's being ported to XP, who needs Vista?!?

Yep it's a huge failure :rolleyes:

Vista Sales Soar

You're not seriously going to believe cnnmoney over the Inquirer, are you?

No, just showing how the data is out there that can prove a point one way or another, but at least my source contains the actual data (whether it's skewed or not) to support my post.

Samueul, I need you to turn on your sarcasm meter and then reread my post.

Sorry I'm in the middle of configuring my new FIOS connection (15/2) and I just browsed and fired off my reply quickly like.

WINDOWS CE
WINDOWS ME
WINDOWS NT
equals....
WINDOWS CEMENT, exactly what they belong in, cement.

Vista is a glorified XP...nothing more....

Try grabbing a decent desktop , ya know, dual core - enough memory to send an entire village to PLUTO, and install WINDOWS 98plus.... go ahead..... HECK, install ANYTHING other than XP or VISA (intentional typo)

MGJ