Geez, you are really out of touch with the reality of the market. The mainstream (a.k.a majority) does not give a flying crap on what OS comes on their system as long it runs whatever they want without issues. Businesses are other hand only care if their upgrade has any significant ROI which Vista lacks in most segments. Hell, you could argue the same thing to this day with XP.
The only groups of people who are crying "OMFG VISTA SUCKS and MADE OF EPIC FAILURE" are a vocal minority of anti-M$, pro-*nix/pro-apple zealots. They are the source of current batch of FUD.
The image problem is not new at all. I remember the same BS with XP, 98, ME expect it did not get anywhere near the amount of online media exposure.
If Vista was such a failure, then why it is selling so well and adoption rate is rather solid despite some of Vista's known shortcomings?
Because, my good man, it is the usual problem - you making a claim with no solid facts to back it up.
Try this on for size:Google results for Vista versus XP sales
Vista was claimed to be a sales "hit" by its maker...meanwhile, in the same sales quarters, XP sales SURGE and not only outsell Vista during the time when Microsoft claims "high initial demand"http://news.cnet.com/Running-the-number ... 07375.html
simultaneous industry studies conclude that a major number of Vista users are returning ("downgrading") back to XP. For example, not only the 23.35% claimed in the aforementioned survey but 35% as per InfoWorld's Windows Sentinel data collection networkhttp://weblog.infoworld.com/sentinel/ar ... he_vi.html
So quoting Microsoft's claim of "100 million sales" only shows one side of the equation: that is, what the competition
to Vista (read: Windows XP) was doing at the same time. And now, of course, continued statistical analysis is 'flawed' due to Microsoft forcefully removing the statistical competition from the marketplace - that is, forcefully killing XP and removing consumer choice in the matter.
Proving to you the Benjamin Disraeli / Mark Twain's classic: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics" when you do not utilize or understand both sides of a statistical equation during your search to find the truth.
Sorry, the whole "7" being the quickest project to be announced after release of the newest one is bogus. I remember Longhorn being announced not long after XP made its official depute, hell NT 5.0 a.k.a 2000 was on the board shortly after NT 4.0 was done. Major software companies always make plans for the next big step after completing a project.
There is a difference between "development announcement" and "initial product displays", one you should well recognize as the intelligent person you are. They are showing
early Windows 7 developments now, at a time when Vista is only a year old. Announcing a replacement, which is years away in development is one thing, showing
the replacement's components and parts of its upcoming functionality now
AND rolling out pre-Beta releases is something completely different, never mind the rumors of Win7 being released as soon as next year.
Please do not play us for ignorant in understanding the level of difference there. The (professional) blogsphere already can read the implication: Vista was such a disappointment the replacement is being both rushed to market and dangled as a carrothttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wi ... rt=10&sa=N
Blog link (Zdnet = IT-related worker audience) and its voting counter are ironic. It proves how much of an impact the anti-Vista FUD has. IIRC, Zdnet were one of the big IT news groups that lambasted Vista in their review over tiny shortcomings that almost scream anti-M$ FUD.
See what I mean? Every opinion that is counter to your belief in Vista is labeled as "FUD". Please - just stop it. NOW
. If you have nothing but the belief of "FUD" to counter arguments with the broken record turns excessively tiring.
Vista's main problem was with early adopters RE: the performance issue. The early release of Vista had a huge problem: users upgrading OS where accustomed to downgraded computer performance due to OS bloat. It was a given. The adopters of said new OS'es were used to having to upgrade hardware as well in order to achieve parity in new system performance versus their old systems.
However, Vista had a serious problem: some users would upgrade their hardware by two
generations but Vista would perform no better than XP, and sometimes continue to perform worse
This (seemingly) has been fixed with SP1 but the public relations damage has been done - Vista, in the marketplace for 1 year with seemingly poor performance for a goodly number of user implimentations, was branded as a loser.
Vista may not deserve that moniker now, thanks to SP1, but it is now fighting an uphill battle to overcome that intial market stigma. And make no mistake: market perceptions
are just as important as reality in the consumer field. Those who do not believe or understand otherwise are FOOLS as history has constantly repeated itself in regards to this.
Note that Microsoft is now making perceived performance
a target during the development of Windows 7; Microsoft will not make the same mistake twice in the initial rollout of the new OS.
Anyway, we are supposed to be adding new ideas to this discussion. I believe a redirect to Windows 7 is in order, as Vista's replacement is already being openly and widely discussed on the internet as well as pre-Beta versions being in the hands of testers. Therefore, the debate on Vista's validity and quality are all moot...the replacement is well on its way to hitting the market, maybe earlier than originally announced. Vista just may indeed end up being, historically, seen as "ME II" - simply a stopgap on the way to later OS's and a "questionable" market success at that, if the rumors of early Win7 release come to fruition.