OSNews

Overpriced, maybe, but hardly vaporware. Vista was released over 6 months ago...released software is by definition not vaporware.

>not vaportware...


Ummm... I think he was talking about the fact that 99% of the "promised" and "hyped" features that were supposed to be in Visia never materialized, aka WINFS etc.

aka... its a vaporware relase through and through.

"its a vaporware relase through and through."

Uh no, it may be a dissapointment but it is not vaporware. Vaporware is overhyped software that has not yet been released.

Vista = unwarranted optimism
Vista = deception
Vista = complete failure on completion date, feature set, feasibility.

In my opinion it's Vaporware even tho it was released, what other choice did they have? to wait another five years to really, really fix it?

Edited 2007-07-23 14:20

WINFS has been vaporware since the "Cairo" days. Aside from that, what was Vista missing that was promised?

"Ummm... I think he was talking about the fact that 99% of the "promised" and "hyped" features that were supposed to be in Visia never materialized, aka WINFS etc.

aka... its a vaporware relase through and through."


If you would, could you please expand on the "WINFS etc"? I've notice that lots of people say that Vista was stripped of a huge number of features, then to support that assertion they give "WINFS etc" as their examples. Can you or somebody else provide a complete list of cut features besides WINFS (so we can see just how many features were cut and judge how important those features were)?

This list looks complete to me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows_Vista#Removal_of_...

It should be pretty obvious that it's a short list. The reason WinFS is always used as the example is due to the overall breadth/scope of what it was going to accomplish. It's worth mentioning that by no means is WinFS dead...it is still being worked on for future incarnations of Windows.

Edited 2007-07-23 14:31

Perhaps it's easier to spot the light (no phun intended) on what features are in fact present.

Cant't be directx because still there are not many dx10 games around and the games written for dx10 perform badly with even a lot of so called dx10 capable high end cards.

As I understand it, the main goals of WinFS is to get away from the current partitioning system; it's been servicable for ~20 years, which is remarkable in computer science terms, but it'll eventually have to be overhauled as we continue to bump up against its limits. While they were doing that, they also are trying to make the 'attribute' more important than the folder in terms of organizing data (although presumably folders will still exist to segregate the system, the application, and the different user documents), and to make complex searches for files on disk as simple as making a system call (or a .NET call).

I've heard it also compared favorably to ZFS, but I don't know how apt that comparison is.

Vaporware is a software or hardware product which is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge, either with or without a protracted development cycle. The term implies unwarranted optimism, or sometimes even deception; that is, it may imply that the announcer knows that product development is in too early a stage to support responsible statements about its completion date, feature set, or even feasibility.

The development process that lead to Vista has left many with a very bitter aftertaste; features were cut, codebases were scrapped, release dates postponed.

OK....... it's only 98% Vaporware the one thing they did do was release it.

va·por·ware (vā'pər-wâr')
n.

New software that has been announced or marketed but has not been produced.

--

Software that is not yet in production, but the announced delivery date has long since passed.

--

If you want to define vaporware simply as software being announced way in advanced, KDE4 might even fall under that. Heck, it fits the definition on some sites:
Products announced far in advance of any release (which may or may not actually take place).

The most common definition of vaporware is software that is announced but never comes. You knew Vista was coming, one way or another.

Maybe we could say Longhorn was Vaporware and Vista is Evaporated ware.

Dealing with people who are not in know about computers doesn't really care either way about DRM, Vista Phone Home, User Account Control. They do complain that it seems Slow. But to the most part they feel kinda ripped off because they waited so long for the new version (so they could upgrade their PCs) and didn't get much in return. If you read they Hype that microsoft gave to it, it would seem that it would do everything that Windows 95 Promiced us. But still it went short.

The problem with Thom's suggestion is that the kernel is a much smaller part of an OS than many people realize. Essentially the conclusion of this piece is that only a tiny part of Windows Vista is worth keeping, while the rest should be scrapped. I don't necessarily disagree, but arguing that it isn't all bad on the grounds that at least the kernel is fundamentally sound is a bit of a stretch.

Let me reduce the OS market down to the fundamental platform models. Windows is modeled on backwards compatibility: release once, runs forever. Free software is modeled on transparency: watch the mailing list, try to keep up. Mac is based on periodic obsolescence: don't use this library anymore, this new one is better.

This is what fundamentally defines the implicit contract between platform vendor and application vendors. Each platform has a particular arrangement, and while everything else is subject to change, they can't reneg on their deal with the devel(opers).

Linux vendors can't freeze their userspace ABIs for 5 year periods. Apple won't let third parties sully their beautiful platform by using antiquated libraries. Microsoft will never, ever make a clean break from backwards compatibility.

Microsoft's age of technological leadership on the PC is over, and there's nothing they can do about it. As I've argued many times, they will decline over an excruciatingly long period, and the less they struggle, the longer they will continue to be profitable. If they carefully maintain their house of cards, they have a good 20 years of black ink ahead. If they follow Thom's advice, they'll be bleeding in less than 10 years.

Their goal is not to produce a compelling, usable, and efficient platform. Their goal is to keep the gravy train rolling down the tracks. As long as they release something that vaguely resembles a modern OS and continues to run apps from the Bush Sr. administration, they'll be fine. But if they make a clean break, they're going to have a really hard time convincing anyone not to switch to Mac or Linux.

And nobody, not even Microsoft, can develop a modern operating system from just a kernel in less than 5 years, let alone the 3-year target for Windows 7. This is like putting a man on the moon. Ten years and $25 billion, minimum.

Actually windows compatibility is hardly what the article suggests. Everything after windows 2k is only tested to comply with windows 2k+. For software that does not run on 2k+ there is an emulator. But the API changes are minimal and this is a huge problem at least for me. The graphical libraries are ancient and even file handling is years behind what you get on *nix and mac os. But it is what it is. After all the MS business strategy is minimal improvements but enough to make you upgrade. I am not so sure Vista qualifies as enough but time will tell.

As far as 5 years being enough ... you greatly underestimate the developmental power of MS. There are thousands of developers working on windows and the reason why so many are needed is because the code base they need to maintain is so vast. If rather than maintaining those same developers move to active development they can write a whole new OS and a new Office in 5 years. The problem however is that from a business perspective this is a suicide and MS will never do it. You cannot scrap compatibility and while office compatibility is easy because there is a clearly defined standard, making sure that software written by various developers for previous versions of the OS is a very hard task. This is why the API stays virtually unchanged and the developers really can't change much. They could pull an Apple but the problem is that MS management really doesn't have the balls for that. Maybe even the expertise...

I agree wholeheartedly.They should just ship one DVD and let you unlock the version you want to install, desktop or server.

Well they do ship all their [desktop] versions on one DVD and unlock one.

I respect what you are saying but what I meant there is really no need for all these desktop versions.Just have one.Even if you want to make that a barebones DVD per se and let the user add their desired functionality afterwards to trim the bloat down a bit.

I think it's clear that the reason for the different desktop versions is to provide a set of different price points; some accountant guesstimated the set of price points that would maximize revenue. People talk of OSX having a single OS at a single price point, but Apple makes most of its money on hardware (and they release an upgrade every 12-18 months at that single price point). Apple, being primarily a hardware company, makes different versions of Macs and iPods at different price points calculated to maximize revenue. Microsoft, being primarily a software company, does the same for software (thus the different versions and price points of Windows, Office, Visual Studio, etc).

Then of course, there's the EU-mandated "N" versions that nobody wants. :p

I agree completely, but you can't apply traditional marketing strategies to software and other kinds of digital media. Different features and different price points works when the consumer associates the added features with added costs to the producer. For most kinds of goods and services, this holds true. But most software consumers understand that it doesn't cost Microsoft any more money to press a Vista Ultimate CD than it does for any other version.

Let's consider two illustrative examples. First, consider a miracle drug. People know that it doesn't cost the pharmaceutical company $100 to make that pill, but they know that it cost them a lot of money to develop. If the doctor prescribed a new version of the pill that included aspirin and costs $200, the patient would be rightfully pissed. They're OK with supporting the development costs, but they're not OK will getting ripped off for added features that don't cost much money to develop or manufacture.

Now consider buying a car at a dealership. You want the upgraded floor mats, but the dealer says they only come with the leather package, which costs $2000. You thank the dealer and tell him you're going to the competitor down the street. Wait a minute, now you can get the floor mats for $75. While it's silly that you have to play these games in order to get the features you want without paying for the ones you don't need, at least it's sometimes possible.

These examples are tangible goods where everybody realizes that you get what you pay for. We just don't want to be nickel and dimed out of our hard-earned money. Not even this much is true for digital media, where a lot of people have no problem with making a copy and not paying for it. Microsoft is in an industry where piracy is rampant, and they respond with seven different versions of Vista at various price points. What are they thinking?

"Even if you want to make that a barebones DVD per se and let the user add their desired functionality afterwards to trim the bloat down a bit."

If the extra code never executes (i.e. it's a feature not available on the edition you have installed), how is that bloated? Or are you just saying that because the DVD is a fixed size regardless of the version you install, that it's bloated?

People say that exact thing of Linux distros constantly, so it would be no wonder really if they'd say that about that Windows DVD too.

"If the extra code never executes (i.e. it's a feature not available on the edition you have installed), how is that bloated? Or are you just saying that because the DVD is a fixed size regardless of the version you install, that it's bloated?"

I think I just had a brain fart there.

Edited 2007-07-23 14:52

Too late, you already mentioned it. :-)

Probably about as long a it takes for someone to say "linux zealot" or "apple fanboy" in articles about Linux or Apple.

Yes, drivers are all written for it, so it would be nice, but I think using the Solaris kernel would be a nice change for processor and datacenter scalability

The day Microsoft uses an open-source, Sun-developed kernel for their OS is the day hell freezes over.

Yeah, it was just fantasy.

It's not logical to use ribbon UI through out Windows. Who says they would do that though? Just because the man and the woman behind the push are on the Windows team now? That's a poor connection.

Thats pretty much it, Vista can be compared to OSX 10.0. It is only with leopard that Apple said it is at the place where they are where they want to be, which is why they are switching to a longer release cycle.

As for biting off more then they can chew, you have to keep in mind that MS is experimenting with a more open development cycle, for the purpose of having a community that feels more involved. This is why all the developer blogs appeared, channel9 started, and for the first time, they talked in detail about what they were doing with vista. Cutting features is a part of life when you have a deadline, just because you can never really predict what will happen. For example, chances are, if MS didnt halt production for the XP code review, WinFS would have shipped. What they ended up doing is raising expectations to epic levels, and then completely underwhelming everyone with their actual release.

True, but the difference is that Apple also took advantage of those new features. With each release they would push their applications up to use those new API's which were made available.

New release of MacOS X then a few months later, updates to Apples products which take advantage of cool new features - something that is sorely lacking in Windows land.

As I said in a previous post, 6 widget kits were noticed within a few hours of using Windows Vista - why hasn't Microsoft standardised *ALL* their bundled operating system applications on one widget and API set? why didn't Office 2007 use the new Avalon enhancements?



But it is appearance more than reality - the reality is that Microsoft is just as distant as it was before, its recycling the same garbage as before. There is no effortto adrress end users requests - getting rid of legacy crap such as win16 and deprecated win32 calls, fixing up their interface, fixing up their bundled applications etc.

Heck, following one thread on a forum there was the fonts manager that was still using win16 widgets for christ sake! it truly is getting really that terrible - in the end, Microsoft is simply doing the motherly thing of "yes, yes, I know dear" but the reality is, they're hoping if they say 'yes, yes, I know dear' that eventually the 'great unwashed masses' will shut up and be damn grateful for what is being produce by the 'great Microsoft'.



But the Windows XP code review hasn't actually achieved anything - if it was a fully code review they would have fully fixed up all the bundled applications; pushing them to use all the same kit, move all their applications to moving the safe version of standard win32 calls, removing rather than 'working around' unsafe calls that exist within win32 - removing backwards compatibility that was a security risk.

Has it improved security - no. The fact is that here we are, almost 6months after the release and a flurry of security updates have come through. No Internet Explorer 8, still major stability issues, security issues appearing on a regular basis with some just being pushed to the back hoping that they'll be ignored by the media.

If Microsoft truly meant security Windows Vista would have been a ground breaking change, it would have removed tonnes of ancient crap from the code base, it would have been clean, pristine - code fully audited. sure, a few crappy applications not working, but by enlarge, a stable operating system focused on the future rather than maintaining compatibility for the past just to keep those in the cheap seats with their 10 year old applications and 20 year old hardware happy.

I agree with the different UIs. I like most of them for various reasons, but the control panel is COMPLETELY different from IE, which is completely different from explorer, which is completely different WMP, which is completely different from Office, which is completely different from VS.

I am 100% behind removing the menu bar on non apple operating systems, but the whole ADD approach to interface design that MS is using nowadays is kind of baffling.

As for compatibility, I agree here too. Compatibility is essential for a business platform, and this has traditionally been microsofts greatest strength. However, some time you need to clean house, and since Vista adoption will likely take even longer then XP (which took around 4 years to get a decent market share), it would have been a good idea to do it here.

The code review did quite a bit. Pre SP2, XP security was a joke. Post SP2, it was what one would expect from an operating system expected to connect to the net. The changes in security for vista run alot deeper, and are analogous to stuff like SELinux. Like everything else in vista, it is very new and untried in the real world, but the difference in security is night and day.

I am one of the lucky few that has hardware which runs Vista with no problems, and my experience has brought back to using windows full time. I actually expected something far less then what was delivered.

Just have a look at the bundled approach, Notepad, Wordpad, Fonts Control Panel, all use different widgets.

Whats worse, this fixation by vendors with their 'branding' and 'skinning' - I don't want skinning. I want a stable application that plays my music without hogging a massive load of memory.

Take Rhythmbox - thats how a media player should look, simple, straight forward and does the job of being a media player as it should.

As for the control panel, I'd love to know who designed it on Windows Vista because quite frankly its the interface from hell.



For me, I don't care what approach they take, just so long as it is consistent. When Microsoft chooses something, it would be nice for the WHOLE of the Microsoft organisation to use that damn standard rather than each division doing its 'own thing' like some sort of out of control teenager.



Its been 4 years for companies (third party) to upgrade and update their software - I'm sorry but 4 years is a damn long time for companies to actually test their applications, remove crufty code and ensure that their products work with the spiffy new Windows.

Heck, the new, safe 'apis' already existed in Windows XP, so they could have started back in 2001, moved their software to the new safe calls, then by the time Vista was ready to ship, it would be all compatible.



True, but they never went far enough. They identified a whole list of security risk calls and problems - why didn't they draw a line in the sand and say, "this is being removed from Windows in the next release" send out a tool so that companies can identify code that needs to be changed. Again, it would require some leadership on Microsofts part.



My computer was preloaded with Windows Vista Business Edition, it was disappointing. When Solaris x86 can boot in under 1/2 the time to desktop, my wireless is more reliable and I can do more out of the box than I could with the Windows Vista Business + HP Kit, its a sad indication to just how bad OEM vendors and Microsoft have become in terms of their ability to provide the end user with something that "just works"(tm)

"the biggest problem is Microsoft's arrogance. Their unwillingness to admit they made mistakes, "

How can you claim that Microsoft refuses to admit mistakes when they volunteered to be interviewed for that NY Times article where they admitted that the development process for Vista was entirely screwed up (too many interdependent things being developed at the same time, resulting in code being checked in with minimal to no testing because testing wasn't possible due to a dependent modules not being complete), resulting in the "reset"?

And numerous mistakes are admitted to in blogs. I recall there was a bug in the initial release of VS2005 that was apparently introduced late in its development (so it appeared after the beta). The programmer himself acknowledged in his blog that it was he who screwed up.

Same thing happened wrt the Vista voice-recognition demo that went awry. The programmer responsible openly acknowledged that responsibility in his blog.

Microsoft openly admits that "Adaptive Menus" in Office were a mistake (see Jenseh Harris's blog). Microsoft openly admits that MacWord 6 was a mistake wrt UI and performance (read various MacBU blogs). Microsoft admits that letting IE6 languish was a mistake (see various IE blogs).

These are just examples off the top of my head. There are many other such admissions in blogs, channel9 interviews, developer conferences.

MS admits to mistakes much more freely than their "rivals". I even remember iPods shipping with a virus, and Apple issuing a press release blaming Microsoft for not making Windows secure enough to combat the virus!

As for "arrogance", can you honestly say that Microsoft is any more arrogant than Apple, IBM, Sun, Red Hat, Oracle, FSF, etc.? And on a personality level, Gates appears absolutely humble when compared to the likes of Jobs, McNealy, Ellison (who's ego is so huge, when his net worth exceeded that of Gates for a few weeks due to stock fluctations, he had Oracle issue a press release trumpeting himself as the world's richest man. lol) I'd even say that RMS is more arrogant than Gates (certainly RMS and FSF are more *self-righteous* than Gates and Microsoft), and is least likely of all of those that I've mentioned to "admit mistakes".



"[MS also refuses to] admit that rivals do have some positive aspects to their development model which allows them to be agile and move quickly to meet changing customer demands."

Microsoft has admitted that Apple's scheme of releasing more modest OS upgrades every 12-18 months has advantages. MS blogs admit the advantages of the agility of OSS developement model.

Microsoft, today, is the most publicly transparent software development company in history, with 4000 developer blogs, hundreds of channel9 developer interviews, and more developer conferences than anyone else. Those blogs, channel9, and conferences are a wealth of info, including admissions of mistakes and acknowledgement of the virtues of their competitors. Can their "rivals" even begin to say the same?

Edited 2007-07-24 15:13

Interesting, and yet, as I said previously, 6 widget kits used in a space of 3 hours of using Windows Vista - audit or more like 'ram the code through a smart compiler and fix up things as it goes along'.



And he (along with his superior) got to keep his job? it makes me laugh that a decision to ship a product with a known fault was made by those who tick off whether something can be officially released.



Yes, but if nothing occurs because of it, then its a waste effort of electrons. Its nothing more tha, "oh, I stuffed up, but I haven't learnt anything from it nor will I change anything as a result of it".



Only forced to admit after they were pushed into a corner; its like pinning someone up against the wall and making them admit they did something wrong - what response would you expect in a similar situation?



Yes, they admit problems with the registry - but they do nothing to actually address the damn problem!

Heck, I could sit down with you and say that I could probably stand to lose a few kilo's, but if I don't actually getting off my fat chuff and do something about it, it is wasted oxygen saying it.

That is the problem, admiting a mistake, but doing nothing to resolve it.

Heck, latest issue regarding security and the idea of 'mandating' that all future Microsoft work to use the new safe call rather than the old one - great. What about the old stuff, why not update their existing products and ship it in a service pack? why continue to provide the old unsafe way when the better way would be to simply announce that it'll be pulled in 6months time and it was up to developers to update their software.



Comparing wrong with wrong doesn't prove anything. Its a bit like a Christian getting defensive over Christian terrorists but saying, "but there are Islamic terrorists to" to some how make a point - the point is? there is no point - its a way of deflection attention off the subject at hand.

The issue is Windows and the lack of fixing issues within the product. They had the opportunity to break compatibility, make massive changes, but they chose not to.



I don't care about personalities; whether Balmer likes attending orgies, whether Bill Gates has a secret longing for a sugar daddy - I don't care. The issue at hand are organisations, not individuals.

Microsoft has proven that it has no willingness to make changes. Change the curtains, add a lick of paint, but its not going to change the fact that the house has rotting walls, dodgy wiring, leaking roof and a infestation of bugs.

Edited 2007-07-24 15:21

You said Microsoft refuses to admit mistakes, then when shown to be completely incorrect, you move the goalposts. You talk of Microsoft not admitting mistakes and here you are unable to admit that you were wrong. How about admitting your own mistake rather than trying to spin away from it?


I just want to address some points you made (the rest I'll leave, since I'd be merely repeating what I said before):

"And numerous mistakes are admitted to in blogs. I recall there was a bug in the initial release of VS2005 that was apparently introduced late in its development (so it appeared after the beta). The programmer himself acknowledged in his blog that it was he who screwed up."

And he (along with his superior) got to keep his job? it makes me laugh that a decision to ship a product with a known fault was made by those who tick off whether something can be officially released."

They didn't discover that there was a problem until after the product shipped. But products are always shipped with known bugs. Those that are deemed too risky to fix (i.e. the importance of the problem is outweighed by the risk of the fix, if there's not a lot of time left in the development schedule to test the fix and make sure the fix didn't break anything else).


"Same thing happened wrt the Vista voice-recognition demo that went awry. The programmer responsible openly acknowledged that responsibility in his blog.

Yes, but if nothing occurs because of it, then its a waste effort of electrons. Its nothing more tha, "oh, I stuffed up, but I haven't learnt anything from it nor will I change anything as a result of it".

*sigh* They fixed the problem. What more do you want? And why do you assume he learned nothing from it?


"Microsoft openly admits that "Adaptive Menus" in Office were a mistake (see Jenseh Harris's blog). Microsoft openly admits that MacWord 6 was a mistake wrt UI and performance (read various MacBU blogs). Microsoft admits that letting IE6 languish was a mistake (see various IE blogs).

Only forced to admit after they were pushed into a corner; its like pinning someone up against the wall and making them admit they did something wrong - what response would you expect in a similar situation?"

Who cares? They admitted the mistakes and addressed them. Good grief. They don't pretend to be "perfect" or "holy" like their "rivals" do. These are humans, not Gods.


"The issue is Windows and the lack of fixing issues within the product. They had the opportunity to break compatibility, make massive changes, but they chose not to. "

They tried massive changes and found it too much, so they did the reset and will go with incremantal changes now. Besides, your wrong anyway. They introduced a new and improved driver model, which did break compatibility with old drivers, for which they are being ripped now. You want them to break more compatibility and get ripped all the more?


"Microsoft has proven that it has no willingness to make changes. "

Shown no willingness to make changes? Have you seen Office 2007? And there are those ripping them for making Office 2k7 too much different than previous versions.

You're setting unrealistic goals for them to meet, then rip them when they don't meet them.


Edit:
One more thing:
"Yes, they admit problems with the registry - but they do nothing to actually address the damn problem!"

I don't know what problems you're specifically referring to. But they now encourage app settings to be stored in their own config files in the user's home folder (withing LocalSettings, and whatnot). .NET provides the Isolated Storage api for just that purpose, and WinForms builds on that to provide the Settings api, which allows for easily storing app settings in XML files. The registry still has its purposes (system-wide info). But it's locked down using the same user permissions as the file system itself.

Edited 2007-07-24 20:52