Why Vista failed - suicide by not fearing Linux enough
While some may say it's too early to claim that Vista failed but this week Microsoft largely admitted that Vista was a failure, so I think it's worth starting the post-mortem. The reason Vista failed was because it killed itself by not fearing Linux enough.
Throughout XP's lifespan Linux was never a viable threat because the price wasn't different. XP was possibly the most pirated application I can think of and it's not an unreasonable thing to say that it actually wasn't difficult to pirate. It was all too easy to give it a "special" serial number and leave the rest to fate. Even SP2 didn't make life difficult. Even the Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) tool was bipassed easily enough - meaning anyone who didn't want to pay for Windows didn't have to.
Also:
I think that Vista does not do as well as XP did. And the reason is not because Vista is not a good operating system, but because XP does the job. The power users already sailed away to OSX and Linux, while the “normal” users found a Microsoft OS that does what they always wanted (XP) and so they don’t see any reason to move on.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- 2644 reads
- PDF version
More in Tux Machines
- Highlights
- Front Page
- Latest Headlines
- Archive
- Recent comments
- All-Time Popular Stories
- Hot Topics
- New Members
digiKam 7.7.0 is releasedAfter three months of active maintenance and another bug triage, the digiKam team is proud to present version 7.7.0 of its open source digital photo manager. See below the list of most important features coming with this release. |
Dilution and Misuse of the "Linux" Brand
|
Samsung, Red Hat to Work on Linux Drivers for Future TechThe metaverse is expected to uproot system design as we know it, and Samsung is one of many hardware vendors re-imagining data center infrastructure in preparation for a parallel 3D world. Samsung is working on new memory technologies that provide faster bandwidth inside hardware for data to travel between CPUs, storage and other computing resources. The company also announced it was partnering with Red Hat to ensure these technologies have Linux compatibility. |
today's howtos
|
re: Vista
It's been the "year of the Linux Desktop" for what, 2, 3, maybe 4 years now, but Microsoft's new OS doesn't soar spectacularly in the first few weeks after it's release and it's a failure?
re: Vista
Have you used Vista? *jab jab*
I wouldn't call it a failure yet, but I personally can't stand to use it (but I need to for work). I have so many issues with it. Even on a brand new laptop the other day, Notepad crashed on me... I am not even kidding. Unstable... pain in the ass OS. Doesn't seem like a winner.
re: Vista
It is much too early to call Vista a failure - I'm sure it sucks, but all Microsoft products suck in their first releases. The thing about Microsoft is, they have bottomless pockets and equally inexhaustible amount of patience... and the near monopoly.
Vista might be a failure in the technical sense, but people will use it anyway. Oh sure, they might grumble and complain, but that's nothing new.
Vista will be installed by default on a ton of new PCs
And for that reason, it'll eventually have a huge user base. (Not to mention, XP disappeared off store shelves and off new PCs after Vista came out.) It'd be interesting to see sales estimates. The word going around seems to be that sales of Vista by itself -- upgrades and full versions -- aren't too good.
Having played around with a trial (did I mention I liked dinking around with operating systems?), it's pretty, and it's sluggish. It doesn't suck, but it does seem to require a faster CPU, a better video card, and more memory than XP does in order to perform decently.