All of this testing was done on Vista-certified hardware that was no more than six months old. We worked directly with Microsoft and the hardware and software vendors to address these issues. Although they helped, it was a losing battle.
In our earliest tests, the applications required 500% more time to complete. After patching and updating drivers, we were able to get that down to 65%. For our 200 engineers at a $50/hour burden rate, that equates to a loss of $20,000,000 (or more) per year.
Now add the cost of hardware upgrades to support Vista. Then deal with the driver and application compatibility issues.
Therefore, we found no business case for Vista."
6 comments:
Ummm..........
Okay?
:D
Seriously I bet a lot of that time was them adjusting to the Vista interface ... I find even on some of our older computers you do a good bit of waiting, but there is still a lot of user input needed. How long were they using it for? Or maybe they just found that the games on Vista are more fun than the games on X.P. :D
Okay, maybe I'll save the rest of my very short rant for Vista for my blog... Still, I don't see any reasons why it would improve how fast they worked. It just made it more fun for them to work cause they get to see a shiny start bar :D
My guess is they did things like told their auto-router to layout a circuit board. On Vista, it probably took 65% longer than it would on XP. Believe it or not, there are a lot of pretty intensive applications engineers use :-)
And I disagree with you on games being more fun in Vista. I've found hacks to make games look like they do in Vista, and they work fine on XP. Bring the game to Vista and you can't run at nearly that graphics level because it's too slow :-P
Basically, you can get add-ons to make Windows98 look like and act like Vista, but Windows98 uses 100-1,000 times less resources than Vista. Just imagine an operating system that ran as fast and light as 98!
"Code reusability" and all these other things Microsoft is always telling programmers to do has backfired. It may be economically advantageous for some applications, but for an operating system? Get lost! You're talking through your hat!
There! How did you like my rant?
the unmentioned ending.
In Vista's defense, Microsoft's main pledge was to make Vista more secure than XP, and in that regard the company succeeded. However, safer and faster is the winning combination — something that many people find to be missing from Vista.
That said, it's not fair to point the finger at Microsoft whenever Windows fails to work as advertised. The problem might not be the Redmond company's fault, as Bill Hobson found when he diagnosed a glitch with his Vista 64 PC:
Good point, but the purpose of my post was to evaluate Vista as an operating system, not Vista in regards to how well it fulfilled Microsoft’s claims.
In my opinion, the terms “security” and “operating system” do not go together. "Security" is meant to prevent unauthorized people/code from using your computer’s resources, and it’s only applications that handle external resources that have to deal with security. (I.E. internet browser, remote access services, etc.) If those applications were written perfectly, ignoring the human factor, there would be no need for virus scanners, firewalls, malware removers, etc.
I believe it was a mistake for Microsoft to try and integrate security into the actual operating system. Vista is one of the “fruits” of this decision. When all the operating system is doing is providing a common interface between applications and computer hardware, you can, if it’s written well by engineers who know computer architecture inside-out, be extremely fast, reliable, and stable. Face it, on a moderately-priced computer, you can run 1 billion three-cycle instructions per second and yet it still takes Windows minutes to boot up.
You know what? I might turn this into a blog post instead. This is getting too long :-)
Anyway, my end opinion is Microsoft has adopted a philosophy that is probably very economically advantageous to them, but makes every computer user suffer and causes companies to loose billions of dollars to computer maintenance/support. Microsoft has had the resources to develop a good operating system for well over ten years, but they seem to keep adding deficiencies that will keep creating "reasons to upgrade."
Still out to get vista eh?
Well, Fear not.. windows 7 will be much the same disappointment.
Microsoft caters to the dumb people, and while trying to make the OS "average user friendly," they make it much more difficult for the expert. (not to mention slower)
don't get me wrong, I like vista.
I like many of the features, but at the same time plenty of it's "dummy" features really waste my time.. Just as an example: The UI for network connections is a pain to work through, The "automatic" fixing of a problem instead of just letting me do it myself is annoying too.. Seems like if I want to do anything fast I have to use the command prompt. In addition, Vista has removed some of the features that made fixing problems, and trouble shooting easier. Sigh.. it's called progress.
Yeah, I really don't get that. Why can't they have two editions? Windows for Dummies and Windows for Geniuses? :-)
Well, whatever. I'm sure everything, down to the start button picture was selected for maximum profit :-)
Post a Comment