Reader Comments

There is a standalone version of the XPS Viewer available for Windows 2000, called "XML Paper Specification Essentials Pack (Beta 1)." Check it out here: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/viewxps.mspx

Cool. Microsoft is just now publishing a document on an OS (that's still 3 quarters away) that might have been relevant 3 or 4 years ago. Excuse my pessimism, but the closer Vista's release gets and the more I think about it, I can't help but feel Vista is almost totally irrelevant. Perhaps, I'm wrong.

Windows Vista! Now with eight product editions and even more retina-burning blue! As a bonus for users with $500 video cards, you get OS X's plastic highlights! These are "innovative features!" Windows is a toy OS.

From the linked website: "The Windows Vista Product Guide provides a comprehensive overview of the innovative features and functions that make Microsoft® Windows Vista™ the next-generation Windows client operating system and successor to Windows XP. ... Definitely a must-read! ... So, where’s the guide? ... it isn’t quite ready for public consumption so I was asked to remove the link." Oh. My. "Isn't quite ready for public consumption?" Honestly, Microsoft, how many years has Vista been in development? You need a compelling reason for people to upgrade, and NO ONE SEEMS ABLE TO PROVIDE IT except to say "It will be more secure", which is the mantra you've trotted out ever since Windows 3.1--and look where we are today. This is getting ridiculous. If Microsoft had approval ratings, I'm sure they'd be lower than GW Bush's right now. And THAT is sad indeed.

""Isn't quite ready for public consumption?" Honestly, Microsoft, how many years has Vista been in development? You need a compelling reason for people to upgrade, and NO ONE SEEMS ABLE TO PROVIDE IT except to say "It will be more secure", which is the mantra you've trotted out ever since Windows 3.1--and look where we are today." Honestly, a simple web search will tell you the new features in Vista: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/features/default.mspx

"It will be more secure", which is the mantra you've trotted out ever since Windows 3.1--and look where we are today. Well, XP is definitely more secure than 3.1 or 3.11 or 95 or 98 (probably even 2k). Give the company a break, will you? The list of features is available at the link anonymous provided. You can also check out the review of the feature complete version at Paul's winsupersite. What more do you want? By the way, you'll be glad (or disappointed?) to hear that Windows live is doing well.

"Windows Vista! Now with eight product editions and even more retina-burning blue! As a bonus for users with $500 video cards, you get OS X's plastic highlights! These are "innovative features!" Windows is a toy OS." Im starting to think that you have a hidden Windows fetich.

I have to TOTALLY agree with bonch and lotsamystuff. Windows Vista has gone beyond joke status and hit the realm of sad. Eye candy and a few overhyped features are not compelling reasons to upgrade. Because of the wide business base, WinXP will continue to receive security updates for the foreseeable future. Vista was neutered of its best feature long ago when WinFS was stripped from the OS. Meanwhile it has been made irrelevant by the likes of Copernic Desktop Search along with Google's offering ... even MSN beat Windows to the punch in this area. All of which is why Microsoft is developing a sad excuse for a "nex generation" operating system.

It's getting a little TOO common that Microsoft documents get posted and then "pulled." Are they trying to get public feedback on things before officially committing to them?

"Give the company a break, will you? The list of features is available at the link anonymous provided. You can also check out the review of the feature complete version at Paul's winsupersite. What more do you want?" I want Microsoft to give me 30 seconds of why I should upgrade to Vista. Hey, it's something even Microsoft bloggers can't do ( http://minimsft.blogspot.com/2006/03/interesting-incoming-comments.html) : "In the meantime, some homework: why is Vista better than XP? If your non-techie friend or financial advisor or Mom asked you that question, what are you going say? "I only ask because recently I was watching a video of a speaker at Microsoft. During the Q&A, he asked that question of a lady Microsoftie in the audience. Not only could you tell her brain was momentarily frozen (uhhhhhh), you could feel that the entire crowd hit a panicked brain freeze. The lady then came up with an almost apologetic answer saying the Vista is more stable, safer, and faster than XP. "Ooo, ouch. Not great talking points. And no one kicked in anything better." Huh. Vista is stable, safe and fast? What's wrong with XP? Seriously. Give me a compelling reason.

I agree that MS is going to have a tough time convincing business users to switch to Vista. I'm not sure many of them have even bothered to upgrade to XP from Win2k. I'm not going to try and convince anyone to upgrade, since XP is good enough. Within two-three months after the release, we'll all get to know if Vista is really as good as MS claims it is. One area that MS has lacked in is advertising. Even the initial XP ads were bland. XP has some cool features and MS didn't even care to advertise them (e.g. movie maker). This is one more reason MS cannot release OSs every two years (of course, you may say that even if they try, they can't).

"Seriously. Give me a compelling reason" I can't give you just one reason, I can give you several. 1. Rewrite of the kernel makes unauthorized access MUCH harder, as every program that accesses/modifies system settings has to ask permission (like Unix-based OS's). 2. Explorer no longer hangs when accessing a lagging network drive 3. Speaking of networking, the rewrite of the network kernel greatly simplifies networking and increases the data rates of existing networks. 4. IE is completely separated from Explorer (try entering "C:\" in IE in Vista and see what happens) and runs in its own "protected" mode-completely isolated from the rest of Windows. 5. A TON of small usability enhancements in Explorer (like filtering data, the "breadcrumb bar", the metadata information pane, search folders, improvements in dragging and dropping files, thoroughly integrated instant search (and not on a separate toolbar like the Add-ons for XP), etc. 6. Revamped layout of the "Windows" menu (Note: after Vista, OSX fans will no longer be able to make snarky comments on pressing "Start" to turn off the computer-only the "Windows" logo is shown), enabling the computer to go into sleep mode, become locked, restarted, hibernated, shut down, and logged off without the use of a separate dialog box. 7. Vista runs faster. Period. Either with "glass" enabled or not (and yes, I have the latest beta installed so I actually have a clue to what I am talking about). I could go on and on about the features in Vista. So lotamystuff, mwrisner, and bonch, what feature(s), what would you like to see in Vista for it to become a "compelling" reason to upgrade? Another note: Please refrain from calling names, starting a flame war, insulting Windows, MS, its fans, etc. If you want to promote Apple, insulting is not a good place to start. In fact, people might be turned off because of such insults. ALL operating systems (including, yes, OSX) have both strengths *and* weaknesses.

"Another note: Please refrain from calling names, starting a flame war, insulting Windows, MS, its fans, etc. If you want to promote Apple, insulting is not a good place to start. In fact, people might be turned off because of such insults. ALL operating systems (including, yes, OSX) have both strengths *and* weaknesses." I agree. You can keep talking about how susceptible Windows is to viruses and spyware and malware. Trust me, if OS X had a 90% market share, you guys too would have experienced the same issues.Bonch has made it his life's mission to find articles that criticize MS and Windows. Also, the "toy OS" line is getting very irritating.

"One area that MS has lacked in is advertising. " Are you kidding??!! All Microsoft does these days is advertising and marketing. Their marketing department has been running amok with first the name change, the pretty pictures of vast mountain landscapes (mmmmm.....Vista.....), and statements about system requirements and how many versions will be available. And while they have been endlessly advertising and marketing this great new operating system, their technical people are stuck in the mud and there are reports that 60% of the code may have to be rewritten! What a laughable organization! The last thing that MS needs is more advertising. Talk is cheap and even MS supporters are starting to look at the whole affair as a joke. MS needs to shut up and deliver the product. By the way, what is it with the dorky MS dinosaur ads? If I were BG, I would have fired the entire advertising department just for that.

"Are you kidding??!! All Microsoft does these days is advertising and marketing." No. I'm not. I'm talking about quality and not quantity. They may spend millions on advertising, but their ads are not great. The new XP ads are pretty good, though -"Start something."

"...and there are reports that 60% of the code may have to be rewritten!" That report turned out to be false; MS Windows programmers denounced it in their blogs. There is NO WAY 24 million lines of code would be rewritten in less than a year (Windows is estimated to have 40 million lines of code). I agree that Microsoft needs better advertisements (the dorky dinosaur ads definitely do not help MS's PR!)

Arguing whether there is a point to upgrade only proves one thing...that Windows XP is not so bad. I don't think there is anything earth shattering about it's features, but when you have a thousand little enhancments, from the users perspective, that makes it compelling.

"Youu can keep talking about how susceptible Windows is to viruses and spyware and malware. Trust me, if OS X had a 90% market share, you guys too would have experienced the same issues." I don't care. It doesn't, so it isn't. Get it? I'm not "insulting" anyone who runs Windows. If you think that, by pointing out that it's a swiss-cheese-security nightmare that I'm doing anything other than speaking the truth, then you should look up a psychological term called "projection". As I've noted before, I'm a Windows user myself, although I greatly prefer OS X for many reasons, not the least of which is security. If it's "security through obscurity", then so be it. Just give me enough market share to ensure continued developer interest, and I'm happy. I don't want to convert anyone; it's a PC, not a religion. If you want your compting experience to include a constant paranoia over security, then more power to you. Seriously. People like Paul have been very good at pointing out the security nightmare posed by Windows and Explorer. It's pointing out those problems that make things better. I don't give a rat's a** if Windows is attacked because it's popular, because it's inherently insecure, or both. I just want it to get better. Simple as that. Every time a new version of Windows comes out, it's touted as being much more secure than the last version. And yet, Viruses, Spyware and Malware (Oh my!) thrive like never before. Something is wrong here, folks. Let's FIX IT. "You can keep talking about how susceptible Windows is to viruses and spyware and malware." Thank you for your persmission. I will.

"I could go on and on about the features in Vista. So lotamystuff, mwrisner, and bonch, what feature(s), what would you like to see in Vista for it to become a "compelling" reason to upgrade?" I would like it to be as immune to sypware, malware and viruses as my Mac, and I'd like the same developer support for multimedia applications as are available on the Mac. If those two conditions could be met, I'd move to Vista in a heartbeat. With the exception of Number One in your list, most of the things listed in the "features" you touted can be boiled down to bug fixes and speed enhancements--something I would expect to take less than 6 years to develop, and could, quite frankly, be rolled into Service Packs. Security may indeed be better, but that's really an unknown until it's in the wild. I truly, honestly hope it's better, but history would tend to indicate otherwise. As I've pointed out, every version of Windows was supposed to be more secure than the one before it, and it's still a nightmare. That's not an insult, BTW. It's a fact.