Jump to navigation
Will Vista Succeed? Define Success.
R. Alex Whitlock
Robert Cringely thinks that Windows Vista is
assured success:
Those who are trying to figure out if Vista will be successful haven't yet grasped the concept that Vista will be forced on the market, and in time it will be the only operating system you can buy from Microsoft. Of course it will be successful. Will people upgrade their existing systems? Of course not. Microsoft operating systems are always designed for future PC's, not for the installed base. Part of the plan is to make Vista work poorly on current computers so we'll all have to buy new ones. This strategy has been around for years and there is no reason to believe we won't fall for it again. Sure, some percentage of people and firms will upgrade, but most of the upgrades will come with whole new computers.
Mike Crute, on the other hand,
disagrees:
Complete lack of innovation. This is pretty subjective but when I look at what Vista is it smacks of Windows XP trying to catch up to Mac OS, and not doing a very good job of it at that. What does Vista really bring to the operating system market? What is new? Well they did revamp the user interface (or “user experience” for marketing people) however what value does this add? I have got to say that in my opinion XP is ugly, the blue new-style theme takes up too much screen real estate and the gray is… well… gray. The new UI look is kinda cool but realistically your going to need a pretty beefy computer to enable all the transparency effects anyhow, plus from what I have seen of Vista its still not nearly as sexy as OS X. What else? Well there is the typical Microsoft-style half-assed attempt to duplicate iLife. Windows “entertainment” applications have always seemed inferior to everyone else, thats why most serious Windows users use Winamp or iTunes instead of Media player. I will refrain from ripping on IE 7 and Outlook Express, everyone else on the internet beat me to it.
My view falls in between these two perspectives.
The problem with Cringely's essay is that it overlooks the fact that the desktop market has changed a whole lot since 1998. Computer sales haven't been growing at nearly the rate that they used to and that means that Vista adoption by that method will be much, much slower. I am still using computers that I bought in 2002 with relatively minor upgrades that most users would never need. Those that do need increased video or gaming capabilities are increasingly able to plug in their own RAM and hard drives or know somebody that can do it for them. The idea that you need to upgrade every couple years doesn't hold true anymore. You can force software upgrades with hardware or you can force hardware upgrades with software, but they won't keep forcing each other for eternity.
As many power users as I know as not have actually declined to even upgrade to Windows XP. For once in their life, Microsoft was a victim of its own success with Windows 2000, an operating system good enough that people don't feel the need to have to upgrade. Between 2000 and XP, a lot of people are going to be willing to hold on. Cringely is right, though, that as long as they're holding on to Windows and not jumping to Linux or Mac then Microsoft continues to win. Be that as it may, that does not make Vista a success. Especially considering the time, money, and hype that has been thrust at it.
The problem with Crute's post can be summed up in two words: Internet Explorer. Despite all of its holes, its lack of features, and its problem it dominates the browser market. 62% of visits to RAW360 are using Internet Explorer (28% Firefox). There are no alternatives to Windows that are
remotely as superior to it than Firefox, Netscape, and Opera are to Internet Explorer. OSX is still dependent on priorietary hardware with higher upfront costs. Linux has greatly improved in the last several years (especially in the area of drivers), but even now I can't install Linux on a machine and expect it to work with a minimal of tweaking like I can Windows 2000 or XP and I'm beginning to doubt that it will ever reach the state where I will.
So I agree with Cringely that Microsoft's supremecy is assured, at least for now. There are three main potholes in their road, none of which are that large. First, if DRM gets to the point that using Windows becomes more trouble than its worth, people will find another way. However, this is as likely as not to occur within the Windows platform with cracks and bypasses created for Windows. Second, if they ever succeed in their goal of making Windows crackproof so that everyone has to shell out a few hundred dollars when they replace a motherboard, people will start to more seriously look at other options. I don't think that they will succeed, however, and if they do there is a decent chance that older versions of Windows will still remain dominant even without their support. Third, a lot of Windows dominance rests on the shoulders of MS Office, and if they lose that with the upcoming change in document structure to XML, that will create an opening for competition. But I have my doubts as to whether or not that opening will be enough.
Continued dominance of the OS market via Vista is not how I would define success. I think that Microsoft is more likely to continue to thrive by making the XBox into an all-purpose entertainment center for movies, music, and of course games. But that would be Microsoft's success and not Vista's.
Observations
"...but even now I can't install Linux on a machine and expect it to work with a minimal of tweaking like I can Windows 2000 or XP and I'm beginning to doubt that it will ever reach the state where I will."
I find that statement unfair for 2 reasons. #1 of course installing Windows on supported hardware is easy. It's actually just as easy with ANY OS when all the hardware is supported. Linux's main problem is that hardware support is 3rd party. People have to hack the hardware to make drivers. Very few drivers are written by the manufacturers for the devices.
And #2, most users DON'T install Windows. At best, these days, they have a manufacturer "rescue" CD that formats the system and installs it like the factory, including all drivers, and programs that came with the PC.
But even aside from that. Installing Windows on hardware that's not supported by default is difficult at best. Our office has elected to use Windows 2000 instead of XP. For several years this was fine, but now it's getting increasingly difficult to install 2000 on these newer machines. Often requiring us to download drivers, burn them to CD and install them that way. Even then there are a lot of strange things, like you have to install directx 8.x+ before you install the sound card driver. Not that sound is life and death, but I think you understand what I mean. I've run into a few other issues where installing various drivers ended up in a kind of catch-22, that I had to trick the system into installing. I'll admit that is rare, but still.
Linux is still waiting for the mainstream vendors to pay attention to it. Until they decide to support it, it will continue to struggle.
/It's actually just as easy with ANY OS when all the hardware is supported. Linux's main problem is that hardware support is 3rd party. People have to hack the hardware to make drivers. Very few drivers are written by the manufacturers for the devices./
Just because it's Linux's fault doesn't mean that it's not Linux's problem. It doesn't matter to the user who is to blame, it matters how cheap an OS is, how stable, and how easy it is to use. Even if it's true that Linux with vender support would blow Linux away, those aren't the choices that consumers have. Consumers have to choose between Linux, as it is (without much support), and Windows, as it is (with more support). I'm not saying that Windows usability superiority is fair, but it's there.
However, I'm not convinced that the problems I've seen are hardware support failures. The driver support right now for Linux is phenomenal and generally better than Windows by a longshot (in fact, I've taken to using Linux Live CDs for hardware identification!).
Anyway, judge for yourself:
1. No CD burning option. CD copy works fine, but the button to burn a CD from files didn't work.
2. Inconsistant network connection. It remains connected to the router and the Internet, but it can't access the local network.
3. Video Codecs stop working after a brief period.
4. Application crashes while playing a DVD.
/And #2, most users DON'T install Windows. At best, these days, they have a manufacturer "rescue" CD that formats the system and installs it like the factory, including all drivers, and programs that came with the PC./
Good point, but whether a Windows CD or Rescue CD, the point is that they install it (or "rescue" it) and it works. Except for the relatively few Linux stock machines out there, would-be Linux users can't do the same.
I'm between you and Kavey on this one, RAW.
On the one hand, Kavey's assertion - that because hardware support is 3rd party, the lack of drivers isn't "Linux's fault" or shouldn't be held against it - makes some sense.
From the flipside, RAW, you've got it right as well. Setting up Linux, even on a distribution that has thousands of drivers or a central way to find the drivers it needs really really really easily, is still a pain. And it still screws up from time to time.
The biggest problem I see for Linux advocates is that rather than having the various Linux vendors try to fix the problems they have (needing drivers, etc) they cry about how people are holding things against them that they shouldn't be, but the reality is, in order to get more market share, these things do really and truly need addressing. Lobbying the hardware makers to write linux drivers is one option, but with the exception of NVidia, most of them look at Linux's market share and decide it's not monetarily worth it.
The other real dilemma for those adopting Linux is that the "safe and familiar" choices aren't there. Yes, you have StarOffice and "similar" programs for almost everything (except games), but people who've been using Windows for years are still going to freak out when something's the slightest bit different.
I've already had two users freak out over IE7 looking different than IE6, imagine them trying to use Opera on a Linux machine, and cringe now.
RAW -
>Anyway, judge for yourself:
>1. No CD burning option. CD copy works fine, but the button to burn a CD from files didn't work.
Very strange indeed. Copying a CD and burning a CD aren't that different. As a matter of fact all burning programs pretty much use the same burning tools. I find your problem very interesting. How many different burning programs have you tried? I might just be a broken GUI.
>2. Inconsistant network connection. It remains connected to the router and the Internet, but it can't access the local network.
I don't know exactly what this means. If you mean you can't browse the network the same way as Windows, then I understand, but other than that, there's not enough info. I believe the easiest way to borwse a Windows network in Linux is to use smb:// in Konqueror.
>3. Video Codecs stop working after a brief period.
Can't say I've ever experienced this myself, but I can't help but wonder if this is related to #4 and your players are either broken, or you have some sort of mild hardware failure you've yet to detect.
Mike -
Making it sound like Linux advocates just whine and don't contribute to a resolution is nonsense. If that's not your intention, it certainly was implied.
Linux people do work very hard on solutions. They aren't whining, but rather explaining to the uninformed user who's wondering why his device doesn't work that it doesn't work because of (fill in here). So it's unfair for them to tell you that it doesn't work because of the vendor, and it's unfair to expect YOU, who wants the device to work, to go complain to the company that makes it rather than to people that have little, if any, control over it?
I actually do a lot of work in the Linux community. I work in help channels, forums, etc. trying to give Linux a fighting chance. I will admit there are some bad help channels and forums out there, but that's to be said about everything. But at the same time, I also submit bug reports, feature requests, and even go so far as to email all my favorite vendors each month requesting Linux support. I seldom get a response. Although recently the companies are stirring enough to actually reply back "we're currently looking into it," which doesn't really say much, but it's better than silence. Especially for a large company to say that.
Mike,
I do have to agree with Kavey on the "whining" issue. It used to be that Linux boosters did have a problem telling you that if you had reasons for prefering Windows that you had the wrong preferences.
But as more and more big companies start throwing their weight behind it, they're bringing in the mentality of trying to actually please the customer.
Kavey,
Sometimes Linux objections do come across as whining or at least being overly defensive. Placing blame with 3rd party vendors, even if what you're saying is true, doesn't address the problem at hand. Worse, it gives the potential customer the idea that the problem is unavoidable and will be permanent.
You are right, of course, that Linux has to clear hurdles that Microsoft doesn't. But they do gotta clear those hurdles.
Regarding the networking issue, I know where the network folders are supposed to be. I even make shortcuts on the desktops when the local network was working. Then one day it stopped being able to connect using the same shortcuts I had made. This was Ubuntu, though, so I don't know how much you would be able to help with it.
Kavey,
I apologize: "Whining" was a bad choice of words.
*/So it's unfair for them to tell you that it doesn't work because of the vendor, and it's unfair to expect YOU, who wants the device to work, to go complain to the company that makes it rather than to people that have little, if any, control over it?/*
As far as that statement:
>If the company does not make drivers for your OS, and customers are not coming to your OS based on lack of drivers, you have two choices:
1> Complain/cajole the company into writing the drivers you need, or:
2> Have some member of your team or some outside programmer write the drivers.
Suggesting that the person also write the company to have them write the drivers is a good suggestion for the long term, but your customer - the person who installed the operating system - wants it to work NOW. And if it doesn't work, they are probably not going to wait until the company finally does make it work. Which makes it Your Problem inasmuch as Your OS is probably what's going to get dumped, rather than That Company's Hardware.
I will say I understand both your points of view, but it's still bassackwards. Example, if a company creates a product that doesn't work on Windows, people say "I can't believe that product doesn't support Windows." On the other hand if a company creates a product that doesn't support Linux people say "I can't believe Linux doesn't support that product." And yes, I do realize it has to do with Microsoft's dominance.
Ah well, that's all I guess I have to say about that. Chocolate?
The problem is that I already have the computer equipment. In your example, the person speaking already theoretically has Windows. It's Linux and the non-windows product developer that have to do the selling, which means that it's their problem and not that of the company that has already sold its product. That's why I put the onus on Linux. Definitely not because it's their fault that the hardware doesn't all work.
Oh, and Vanilla dangit!
Add an Observation
Comment spam is an ongoing problems that we're trying to address. Previously we required people to create accounts and log in. I am thankful to say that is no longer the case. We're giving Captcha another try and are playing around with a text-based Q&A variant of Captcha. So bear with us as we try to figure out how to best get a handle ont he problem. Please note that any comment on a post more than 30 days old will go into the moderation queue, where I will get to it when I can which could be once a week.
