Windows Vista = Windows Me II?

[Chris]

Is Windows Vista going to be a repeat of the Windows Me marketing and sales disaster that Microsoft experienced back in 2000?

Over the past few weeks I've come across a number of articles on tech sites that are putting Windows Vista and Windows Me in the same sentence. Not good. Others are more blatant and are directly comparing Vista to Me. That's really bad and not the kind of comparison that is going to fuel sales.

When Windows Me was released by Microsoft back in 2000 it was a total debacle. The operating system offered the consumer very little in the way of new technology (a new interface that looked like Windows 2000 and features such as System Restore, UPnP and automatic Windows Updates). It was tricky to install, trickier still to get running, buggy, tough to get hardware working, even tougher to get legacy hardware running because Microsoft decided to remove non-PnP drivers from the installation CD, had compatibility issues with software, and quite often it just didn’t want to shut down properly. It truly deserved its #4 spot in “The 25 Worst Tech Products of All Time” list. On the plus side … it didn’t have any form of Product Activation.

Here

[-pops-]

I tend to agree. There has been nothing in the hype surrounding Vista either pre or post launch that has excited me enough to want to use it.

I did install Me as there were(apparently) some important improvements over previous versions but, as far as I can make out, Vista doesn't offer me anything that I could say "that was worth it".

I'm giving it a miss altogether and will wait for the next Windows version. Isn't it coded "Venice"?

[trackrat]

pops it is coded Vienna.

http://www.nforcershq.com/article7456.html

[-pops-]

pops it is coded Vienna.

http://www.nforcershq.com/article7456.html

Oh well, near enough , I suppose (don't suppose the Viennese or Venetians would say that though).

Perhaps Venice is the one after that :)

[andsome]

I still cannot understand the mentality that drives some people to have to have the latest whether they need it or not. Too many have rushed into upgrades on older computers, as happened with XP. Forums are getting the expected tales of woe and pleas for help. Even on computers built with Vista in mind there is still a shortage of software. I have no reason to dump XP for an upgrade which would be of no benefit whatsoever.

[cozofdeath]

I agree. If the price was a lot lower I think it would be doing much much better. They should of tried harder to get everything they wanted and talked about into the initial release and not later service packs. I understand what you mean andsome. I think that constantly updating can eventually cause problems. It tends to bloat programs with unnecessary code and features. Many times the features have nothing to do with the original program. Many times I'll read the update history to see if I need to update. Developers look at updating like a way to make more and more money and after a while the program hogs resources and memory and people begin to dump it. Then a remade program comes out as a new major version when they really just cut or consolidated features and change the GUI. Sounds like Vista to me. Thats just me harping on Vista. I do believe there are some cool things with it as well.

[AlanHo]

I am intrigued by those that argue they will give Vista a miss and wait for the next version of windows.

If you have an aversion or worry about new Microsoft operating systems - like Vista - why declare your faith in the next one which indicates you consider it will be better. It is a never ending argument - because the next version will garner flack and you will then decide to wait for the one after that.

I can understand those who consider that Vista does not offer enough over and above XP for them to merit a change - but cannot agree with those who argue that Vista is a crippled OS and they will wait for the next one.

[-pops-]

I am one of those who consider that Vista doesn't offer enough to justify the cost. If the next generation still doesn't offer anything revolutionary, I won't have that either except for the fact that my current machines will be getting a bit ancient by that time and change will have been forced upon me.

It seems that computer development has reached something of a plateau and it will have to be something quite amazing in hardware or software that gives the industry the vibrancy and interest it once had.

Processing speeds are very fast now and speed increases which would have been quite outstanding on slower machines now go un-noticed as they are applied to processors working too fast for us to appreciate properly (yet there are still people who want to overclock). Storage capacity is similarly so enormous that drives of terabyte size are within the price range of most computer users - more data storage than you could ever reasonably want.

Developments such as Blu Ray, HD disks are looked at with complacency. Most other things are cosmetic developments such as a style change on a pre-existing product - which brings us back to Vista - a style change to a product that didn't really want changing with little or no advantage for most users.

[nellie2]

Vista isn't just about how it looks.

There are some serious security enhancements, it ships with Windows Defender, the Windows Firewall is tonnes better and configurable if you know where to look, it has built in parental controls, most versions come with Media Centre, and of course there is UAC which although annoying.. is a big step in the right direction.

I realise that the majority of people who are regulars on Windows Forums don't need the above enhancements or protection, but Vista is not just a pretty interface.

Microsoft have made some big mistakes in marketing it though... all those versions are silly and restricting the license to one individual machine and taking away the option to transfer it to a new build is also very short sighted IMO.

I like Vista though... I'm happy to use it and it's been fun and interesting getting to know it.