So, I've been dual-booting to Vista for a while now. Overall, I like it. It's a lot nicer than XP - and it's got lots of great new functionality that I really like.
But everytime I use Vista for an extended period, I can't help but think that it's all 'lipstick-on-a-pig'. Sure, I KNOW that there's a lot more going on under the covers to make things more secure, and more stable. It's just that soooo many things I see in Vista make me think: "We waited HOW MANY years for THIS?" That's, honestly, Strike 1.
Strike 2, for me, is all of the functionality that ISN'T making it into Vista. WinFS being a key one. The 'yanked feature du jour' over the past few months just keeps adding to my discontent. Yeah yeah... development on the thing is incredibly complex (as a developer I TOTALLY get that) - but you promised a Cadillac and now you're getting ready to cross the finish line in a Segway2 - and you still want me to be extatic.
Strike 3, however, is what's prompting this blog post. I'm just getting a sick feeling about the way MS is sticking it to end users to make movie studios happy. Take this quote, for example, on why MS recently pulled HD playback-ability from 32-bit versions of Vista:
“This is a decision that the Media Player folks made because there are just too many ways right now for unsigned kernel mode code [to compromise content protection]. The media companies asked us to do this and said they don’t want any of their high definition content to play in x32 at all, because of all of the unsigned malware that runs in kernel mode can get around content protection, so we had to do this,” he said. [emphasis added]
Tell me that's not disturbing. Hollywood doesn't want their stuff to play on 32-bit machines - so that's it? Looks like Paul Murphy was right - Vista was heavily designed to please Hollywood - not meet end-user needs.
And that's a terribly sad move for MS in my book. (That, and the fact that it's umpteen billion years over due, and completely under-delivered.) I'll still USE it (and LIKE it), but Vista's whole development cycle is sadly erroding my faith in a company whose kool-aid I used to tout as untouchable.
The *only* way I'd upgrade to Vista at this point would be because it came with a new PC and I didn't have a choice. I really see nothing compelling for me to upgrade. Except, perhaps, IIS? Is that new?
Posted by: Jon | August 24, 2006 at 02:53 PM
I think Vista's pretty cool overall. Just entirely too little, entirely too late. I'll switch to it ... just for some of the improvements - and because I'm such a nerd.
But I'm bummed that MS has put such an emphasis on making hollywood happy this go 'round. I mean... I saw that digital downloads of TV/Movies is expected to be a $40 billion (am I remembering that right) market in 5-10 years... so I guess I see where they're going - I just wish the focus was on providing ME with a good platform for that, not so much on making sure that the OS is soooooo locked-down-tight that even my VIRUSES can't overcome copy protection.
Lame...
Posted by: Michael K. Campbell | August 24, 2006 at 03:27 PM
Is Microsoft seriously under the illusion that the same "unsigned malware" won't be available for the 64-bit OS about 5 minutes after Vista is released (or maybe before)? Seems like somebody is seriously underestimating the hackers...
Posted by: Michael Carr | August 25, 2006 at 06:13 AM
HD playback on 32bit will be possible after all (just not out of the box) although I take your point about who is actually steering the Vista juggernaut...
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/software/windows-vista-32bit-can-play-hd-dvd-bluray-movies-196535.php
Posted by: James Simmonds | August 25, 2006 at 06:23 AM
I've been running Windows 2003 Server as my primary desktop OS ever since it went into beta, and I don't see any compelling reason to switch (except maybe to Mac OSX or SUSE :-)...
Posted by: Eric Bowen | August 25, 2006 at 07:04 AM
1. That's foolish subjectivity. Should I hate OS X because it took me until last year to save enough money to buy a Mac or because I had been told it would wash my car and it's merely a solid OS? Timing and hype are subjective, esoteric criteria. Maybe that's the kind of person you are.
2. This is the same gripe as I thought I was getting a pony and all I got was a Power Ranger in #1. If we follow your whining to its illogical conclusion they should have included flawed or ill-conceived, albeit ambitious, feature sets and taken longer to ship or done so with even higher bug counts. Cutting features to meat the other legs of the triangle should be second nature to anyone, I find it hard to believe you're actually a software developer.
3. Now we have an objective complaint. Excellent. Except it's wrong. Your kneejerk reaction to yesterday's news makes you no less of a chicken-sans-head than you accuse MSFT of being.
Vista is a debacle, hopefully they'll keep grinding away, being pragmatic and ship something that's not WinME. At that point they can chart the future.
In the meantime, at least come up with a more analytical take of why the product and direction are off (they are, I agree there, I just find fault with your hand-wavey rationale).
Posted by: Anti | August 25, 2006 at 10:20 AM
@Anti
Remember, I'm just ranting here. So if you were looking for a cunningly devised, in-depth, technical treatise on why Vista is teh sux0r sorry to dissapoint. (cuz frankly, a) I don't HATE Vista (it's just too little too late - but still better than XP), and b) I'm just ranting (maybe you've heard of that - it's where somebody spouts off some thoughts??)
Rebuttals:
1. MS is the one that promised a REVOLUTION. Any geek that takes Vista for a spin will feel the same way I do: that the _visible_ functionality _feels_ like nothing more than a service pack that could have been put in place 3 years ago; hardly a revolution. They set the expectation, and frankly, failed to deliver. That's a strike in my book.
2. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that MS over-promised on Vista functionality and has been dropping feature after feature (with slipped date after slipped date). What's left is hardly the revolution they promised.
And I do take exception to your snotty crack on my developer chops. Tell you what: promise a client a fire-breating dragon that destroys enemies and shoots golden coins out of its ass and then deliver a sling-shot and some round rocks 4 years later, and let's see how far you get as an 'actual software developer.' Real developers know that managing customer expectations is one of the MAJOR aspects of survival. MS dropped the ball here.
3. Fair enough. (The site is called 'AngryPets' after all - so a headless chicken seems to work... though I'm not sure it would make a good pet... )
Cheers.
Posted by: Michael K. Campbell | August 25, 2006 at 11:04 AM