• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Time Magazine's Vista Review

Quinton McLeod

Senior member
Straight from the horses mouth.

That's one reason for the near-total non-excitement surrounding the launch of Windows Vista, the first new version in five years of the software that runs hundreds of millions of PCs. The other reason is that Vista is ... pretty good. It's not a disgrace, and it's not a masterpiece. It's not worth buying a new machine for Vista, and there's no reason to switch to it if you use a Mac, but it gets the job done. Not the stuff of which great headlines are made.

The fact that it took Microsoft over five years and $6 billion dollars to create Vista is ? and I mean this quite seriously ? an embarrassment to the good name of American innovation, but it's perfectly fine.

Link: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1582415,00.html

Even Time admits that Vista isn't really worth an upgrade and that it lacks features that make it worthy of anything more of "just good enough".

Discuss
 
To sum up: Vista is a perfectly respectable new iteration of Windows. They've even, finally, come up with a decent way to make laptops sleep and wake up again, which XP was never very good at.

See, I can quote sentences out of context too. 😛

I think you've made your opinion of Vista crystal clear in the other 34,430 threads on the subject. What is the point of starting up another one?
 
Originally posted by: MrChad
To sum up: Vista is a perfectly respectable new iteration of Windows. They've even, finally, come up with a decent way to make laptops sleep and wake up again, which XP was never very good at.

See, I can quote sentences out of context too. 😛

I think you've made your opinion of Vista crystal clear in the other 34,430 threads on the subject. What is the point of starting up another one?

How about you discuss the article and not the threads I've posted on, hmm?


Besides. You can read the context of his review once you read the first 2 paragraphs. He's openly expressing the lack of the need to upgrade to Vista.
 
As far as the article go, it's about as in-depth as I would expect from Time (which is to say, not very). I would trust the opinions of technical experts over a review in Time. But for Joe Sixpack, it's an average review.
 
Originally posted by: MrChad
As far as the article go, it's about as in-depth as I would expect from Time (which is to say, not very). I would trust the opinions of technical experts over a review in Time. But for Joe Sixpack, it's an average review.

lol

You're funny.
You're completely ignoring the fact that Time isn't the only publication saying this. You've seen in the CNet review how they felt the same way.

Just admit it. Vista is not the second coming. Sorry.
 
They probably don't realize how hard it is to overhaul the entire underlying of an OS and thoroughly QA it. Lots of the changes are invisible to MOST users (of course there are tons of visible ones too).
 
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Originally posted by: MrChad
As far as the article go, it's about as in-depth as I would expect from Time (which is to say, not very). I would trust the opinions of technical experts over a review in Time. But for Joe Sixpack, it's an average review.

lol

You're funny.
You're completely ignoring the fact that Time isn't the only publication saying this. You've seen in the CNet review how they felt the same way.

Just admit it. Vista is not the second coming. Sorry.
lol, CNet.

Anyways, of course Vista isn't the second coming. I don't think anyone here, even the ones who work for Microsoft thinks it is.
 
I found this evaluation in last week's Economist much more interesting that the Time review.

http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RVVDVGJ (requires a subscription)

Here's an excerpt:
Clouds in the sky

For years Microsoft's Windows logo often appeared against a blue sky with cottony clouds. But the cloud has become one of the company's biggest threats. The operating system matters less when programs can be provided online. Moreover, online software can be delivered to customers more cheaply, there is immediate feedback from users and applications can continually be improved. Those are big advantages over software sold in a box, one version at a time.

In the past Microsoft tied its operating system and applications together by ?commingling? the code (and ran afoul of antitrust authorities for doing so). The rise of online applications threatens the primacy of Windows because the network becomes the platform for the software. It does not mean PC operating systems are unnecessary, just that it is increasingly the cloud, and not the PC, that is the launch pad for computing.

This suggests new ways to sell software. Instead of charging for each shrink-wrapped box, firms can sell programs as a service, collecting monthly payments, or giving them away and earning money from advertisements.

The third difficulty facing Windows and Office is security. Much of the justification for Vista among Microsoft's managers was to improve security. Governments and large businesses had voiced concern about the omnipresence of Microsoft products and a rash of hacks and viruses that exploited holes in the firm's software.

But there was a big problem. In the past, each new version of Windows was written on top of earlier ones. The code became gangly. It resembled sedimentary rock with the occasional fossil of a long-lost feature or inadvertent vulnerability.

Vista was meant to clean up all this debris. Its code was written from scratch?a large part of the reason for its delay. Yet plans for ambitious new features, such as a powerful way of searching the computer and a new method of storing and retrieving files, called WinFS, were cancelled in 2004 when it became apparent the technology was too difficult. Already behind schedule, Microsoft decided to rush out a release. In December, within days of Vista's being made available to businesses, researchers identified security lapses?even though America's National Security Agency helped to harden it. Are there other vulnerabilities? Nobody will know until Vista is more widely used.

No matter how many resources Microsoft pours into making its software secure, some flaws are inevitable. But the company has also been trying to make security a source of revenue. It established a system ensuring that security updates go only to legitimate buyers rather than those with pirated copies. Yet any insecure PC can harm everyone, because all are vulnerable to one Typhoid Mary.

Microsoft initially planned to prevent other firms' security software from accessing the ?kernel? of Vista, in effect the heart of the system. This could render rival products less effective. Although protecting the kernel from malicious code makes sense, some companies argued that it was yet another attempt by Microsoft to use its operating system as the ticket into another market, as it did with browsers and media players. After the European Union complained, Microsoft backed down and provided a form of access.

Although Microsoft is defending itself against some of the biggest trends in computing, it will not be unseated anytime soon. Indeed, the company has often said its biggest competitor is itself: previous versions of its products worked well enough, so many customers would not bother to upgrade to newer ones.

This time Microsoft has put aside any complacency. In the past 18 months the company has reorganised its divisions and put managers from a commercial background in charge instead of their technical colleagues. This counts as a big shift in what was always an engineering culture.

Bill Gates, who as chief software architect was in large part responsible for the earlier, failed vision of Vista, has given up his role. His successor is Ray Ozzie, a relative outsider who joined when Microsoft bought his company in 2005. Mr Ozzie is trying to ?webify? Microsoft's products. Greater discipline is expected too. Steve Ballmer, the chief executive, vows that there will be no more long delays between new product introductions.
 
Originally posted by: stash
The review is generally positive anyway. What would you like to discuss?

It is not generally positive at all. He simply speaks on the features. However, he openly admits to the fact that Vista is a cop-off of OS 10.

No matter how much sugar you put on top of it, it will always be bitter.
 
You call that a review? No numbers, no benchmarks, no reports on drivers and application compatibilities and conflicts. No mention of the hot topic of DRM. All it said was, "Transparent UI is nice but not innovative enough" or something like that.

This thread -> lame attempt to incite flamewar and increase postcount.

Edit: Yes, Vista borrows GUI elements from OSX. Your point? The review also said that even though there is no compelling reason to upgrade from XPSP2 to Vista, if you are buying a new computer, you can't go wrong with Vista.

"If you are buying a new computer, you can't go wrong with Vista" Mmmkay?

An OS has a shelf life of anywhere from 5-7 years. XP caused a lot of people that were running Win98 with 64/128MB RAM to upgrade to 256MB minimum. Vista is causing XP users with 512MB RAM to move up to 1GB minimum. Do you see how software has to change to better utilize ever changing hardware? What is your point?
 
However, he openly admits to the fact that Vista is a cop-off of OS 10.
So does just about every journalist, because they all use Macs on a daily basis. So what?

No matter how much sugar you put on top of it, it will always be bitter.
Tastes great over here!
 
Originally posted by: MrChad
I found this evaluation in last week's Economist much more interesting that the Time review.

http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RVVDVGJ (requires a subscription)

Here's an excerpt:
Clouds in the sky

For years Microsoft's Windows logo often appeared against a blue sky with cottony clouds. But the cloud has become one of the company's biggest threats. The operating system matters less when programs can be provided online. Moreover, online software can be delivered to customers more cheaply, there is immediate feedback from users and applications can continually be improved. Those are big advantages over software sold in a box, one version at a time.

In the past Microsoft tied its operating system and applications together by ?commingling? the code (and ran afoul of antitrust authorities for doing so). The rise of online applications threatens the primacy of Windows because the network becomes the platform for the software. It does not mean PC operating systems are unnecessary, just that it is increasingly the cloud, and not the PC, that is the launch pad for computing.

This suggests new ways to sell software. Instead of charging for each shrink-wrapped box, firms can sell programs as a service, collecting monthly payments, or giving them away and earning money from advertisements.

The third difficulty facing Windows and Office is security. Much of the justification for Vista among Microsoft's managers was to improve security. Governments and large businesses had voiced concern about the omnipresence of Microsoft products and a rash of hacks and viruses that exploited holes in the firm's software.

But there was a big problem. In the past, each new version of Windows was written on top of earlier ones. The code became gangly. It resembled sedimentary rock with the occasional fossil of a long-lost feature or inadvertent vulnerability.

Vista was meant to clean up all this debris. Its code was written from scratch?a large part of the reason for its delay. Yet plans for ambitious new features, such as a powerful way of searching the computer and a new method of storing and retrieving files, called WinFS, were cancelled in 2004 when it became apparent the technology was too difficult. Already behind schedule, Microsoft decided to rush out a release. In December, within days of Vista's being made available to businesses, researchers identified security lapses?even though America's National Security Agency helped to harden it. Are there other vulnerabilities? Nobody will know until Vista is more widely used.

No matter how many resources Microsoft pours into making its software secure, some flaws are inevitable. But the company has also been trying to make security a source of revenue. It established a system ensuring that security updates go only to legitimate buyers rather than those with pirated copies. Yet any insecure PC can harm everyone, because all are vulnerable to one Typhoid Mary.

Microsoft initially planned to prevent other firms' security software from accessing the ?kernel? of Vista, in effect the heart of the system. This could render rival products less effective. Although protecting the kernel from malicious code makes sense, some companies argued that it was yet another attempt by Microsoft to use its operating system as the ticket into another market, as it did with browsers and media players. After the European Union complained, Microsoft backed down and provided a form of access.

Although Microsoft is defending itself against some of the biggest trends in computing, it will not be unseated anytime soon. Indeed, the company has often said its biggest competitor is itself: previous versions of its products worked well enough, so many customers would not bother to upgrade to newer ones.

This time Microsoft has put aside any complacency. In the past 18 months the company has reorganised its divisions and put managers from a commercial background in charge instead of their technical colleagues. This counts as a big shift in what was always an engineering culture.

Bill Gates, who as chief software architect was in large part responsible for the earlier, failed vision of Vista, has given up his role. His successor is Ray Ozzie, a relative outsider who joined when Microsoft bought his company in 2005. Mr Ozzie is trying to ?webify? Microsoft's products. Greater discipline is expected too. Steve Ballmer, the chief executive, vows that there will be no more long delays between new product introductions.


This does not speak on Vista's features. So, this article does little to thwart the previous article I posted
 
Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
You call that a review? No numbers, no benchmarks, no reports on drivers and application compatibilities and conflicts. No mention of the hot topic of DRM. All it said was, "Transparent UI is nice but not innovative enough" or something like that.

This thread -> lame attempt to incite flamewar and increase postcount.

Edit: Yes, Vista borrows GUI elements from OSX. Your point? The review also said that even though there is no compelling reason to upgrade from XPSP2 to Vista, if you are buying a new computer, you can't go wrong with Vista.

"If you are buying a new computer, you can't go wrong with Vista" Mmmkay?

An OS has a shelf life of anywhere from 5-7 years. XP caused a lot of people that were running Win98 with 64/128MB RAM to upgrade to 256MB minimum. Vista is causing XP users with 512MB RAM to move up to 1GB minimum. Do you see how software has to change to better utilize ever changing hardware? What is your point?

Correction... A MICROSOFT OS has a shelf life of anywhere from 5-7 years.

The upgrade from Windows 2000 to XP wasn't as significant as it is with XP to Vista. You're ignoring the fact that Vista isn't a necessity like 95, 2000 and XP were. Vista is more like Windows ME. There's nothing new with it but a prettier interface ripped directly from OS 10.
 
Originally posted by: Griffinhart
You keep saying that, and you keep being wrong. Just repeating false information over and over doesn't make it true.

And just saying I'm wrong does little to prove that I am.
 
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
This does not speak on Vista's features. So, this article does little to thwart the previous article I posted

You weren't commenting on Time's discussion of Vista's features, so I beg to differ. In fact, you highlighted the following quote from the Time reviewer.

The fact that it took Microsoft over five years and $6 billion dollars to create Vista is an embarrassment.

The Economist article I posted goes into much greater depth about the delay and the challenges Microsoft faces in the changing PC landscape.

I suspect that you're more interested in bashing Vista than you are in discussing these topics, however, so I'll let my point drop.
 
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
Originally posted by: Smilin
Quinton you are such a useless Troll.

Lets keep the name calling to a minimum and discuss the topic of the thread. Thank you.

I am discussing the topic of the thread. You are CLEARLY trolling.
 
Back
Top