Friday, July 25th 2008

Microsoft Spins Over a 'Mojave' Approach to Grow Vista User-base

Choice is a wonderful thing. Informed Choice is even better, where you choose something after knowing its inside-outs. The very opposite of informed choice is dogma, where you rigidly oppose something and stick to your beliefs. Incidentally, dogma seems to be one of the significant factors keeping users away from embracing Windows Vista OS, of what can be inferred from an experiment by Microsoft in San Fransisco, United States. A group of Windows XP users having negative impressions on Windows Vista were introduced to a "new" operating system they referred to as "Mojave". User experiences on using this operating system were noted and feedback taken. A surprising 90 percent of these users gave positive feedback on this new OS. They were later told that the new OS was nothing else but Windows Vista.

Despite Microsoft releasing numerous updates and fixes to the Vista OS making it a fairly stable, reliable OS close to expectations if not exactly on par, it seems to be mass dogma that's keeping users away from adopting this new OS. Going back to that experiment, a user is reported to have exclaimed "Oh wow", something Microsoft expected users to do with the new OS originally, as portrayed in those numerous television and print commercials going with the tag line "wow". Following the recent announcement of a huge budget allocation towards propagating Vista (covered here) for home and enterprise segments, the message being sent out is that Microsoft is not only being aggressive but also proactive.Source: CNET
Add your own comment

231 Comments on Microsoft Spins Over a 'Mojave' Approach to Grow Vista User-base

#1
Mussels
Moderprator
DaMulta said:
To show that the word from people that know tech made them think that vista is really bad.


The no back folder button really pisses me off that it is now gone. Me and my boss scream about it all the time. It's one of the main things that we hate about vista, besides the new start menu and UAC.
the folder with the up arrow? well at least you can click part of the name now, and have it go there that way. (if i go to D:\games\far cry\ i can simply click games in the address and it takes me back to that folder)
Posted on Reply
#2
Ketxxx
Heedless Psychic
DrPepper said:
agree with resource hog bit but that happened to xp as well, unstabel .. I have to disagree since mines never crashes unless im overclocking in which case xp does as well. Bloated - same with xp, inferior gaming performance ... 1 fps is not a make or break for a gaming experience, no idea about the soundcard thing and the GUI is your opinion not a fact.
The GUI thing is a fact, people I speak to that have used Vista for some time still do not like the GUI - its a mess.

Inferior gaming performance is also a fact. In benchmarks things are about the same, but with games like Crysis its a whole different story. People report after installing Vista they had to tone their game settings down to medium, whereas on XP they could run most settings on high. Thats a rather dramatic difference.

Now, XP being bloated? I'd like to know how on earth you come to that conclusion. On a fresh, completely uncustomised install XP uses around 2GB, Vista on the other hand even after extensive install customisations still requires at least double that of XP.

Finally, stability. With the majority of NORMAL PC users reporting crashes and the average being worked out at around 17.5hrs between crashes, Vista is just not a stable, reliable OS.
Posted on Reply
#3
Ketxxx
Heedless Psychic
imperialreign said:
very true - and the further towards the east coast you go, the more prevailant and widespread the use of native american terms become






I agree with you on most points you presented . . .

the sad thing, though, is that some of the bigger issues between XP/Vista can be fixed - DX10 can run on XP . . . and we could have audio hardware acceleration in Vista . . .

Vista, IMO, is currently no better than XP was when it was released, and after SP1. But, Vista gives me the impression of an OS that was ritzed up to compete with MAC, and userability had to fall sacrifice for this. You know how irritating it is to install an application, and then spend 45min trying to figure out why it doesn't want to run, only to realize you didn't install or run the application as "administrator?!" It gives me the impression that it was shoved out the door more half-baked than XP initially was . . . we still have software and hardware companies trying to get stable or "accepted" Vista drivers released . . . c'mon, driver support on the 3rd party side was bad enough that MS delayed the launch of the OS to give some big name companies time to finish developing drivers that the OS would cooperate with.
DX10 does not quite run on XP, to date most of "DX10 only" features are nothing more than DX9c being pushed to its limits. This includes Crysis. When you hack Crysis for XP there its literally 1 or 2 options that will ONLY run under DX10, however neither of these options seem to impact performance or visual quality in any way what so ever.

I used XP before SP1, and I have to say regardless of its flaws at the time XP was still far better than Vista on release. I also firmly think XP was far better than Vista when SP1 was released compared to Vista and its SP1. This is all generally backed up in all kinds of articals across the web.

The audio issue is a big thing IMO. Vista just plain sucks. Why bother with a very expensive soundcard if Vista is going to fuck it up and cripple it? Not a bad onboard audio solution by any means, I tried Vista with my Crosshair which uses an ADI 1988B CODEC, and dear god, the sound quality was absolutely horrible, massively muffled and distorted sounding. Back to XP all was well, clear, crystal sounds. All in all like you I'll stand by my original statement - I hope whoever had the moronic idea to drop hardware sound acceleration got fired. I would go into more details, but I'm saving my artillerary for if a certain LindseyM_WindowsTeam dares to step into the shadow of my domain :cool:

Oh and ADI aren't among the best onboard audio solutions - they are THE best :D
Posted on Reply
#4
farlex85
Ketxxx said:
The GUI thing is a fact, people I speak to that have used Vista for some time still do not like the GUI - its a mess.

Inferior gaming performance is also a fact. In benchmarks things are about the same, but with games like Crysis its a whole different story. People report after installing Vista they had to tone their game settings down to medium, whereas on XP they could run most settings on high. Thats a rather dramatic difference.

Now, XP being bloated? I'd like to know how on earth you come to that conclusion. On a fresh, completely uncustomised install XP uses around 2GB, Vista on the other hand even after extensive install customisations still requires at least double that of XP.

Finally, stability. With the majority of NORMAL PC users reporting crashes and the average being worked out at around 17.5hrs between crashes, Vista is just not a stable, reliable OS.
How is disliking the GUI a fact? Even if it is the popular opinion, that doesn't make it a fact. I love the GUI, it isn't a mess at all, so.........

Gaming performance isn't inferior at all. I haven't ever had to crank down any settings. The only thing I can't do is AA in Crysis (can't do that in XP either). Other than that I run it in extreme (config mod) or very high on everything and enjoy it very well. Every other game I can completely max out w/ AA and all. Then again, I care really only about true real world performance (my experience playing the game, not at all based on fps). Again, not a fact........

Xp is very bloated compared to 2000. It's progress, more features, more hardware, progressively more "bloated."

Majority maybe reported problems when the os was first released, no longer the case I would suspect. I don't have exact statistics, if you do then show me, so again, not a fact........
Posted on Reply
#5
DrPepper
The Doctor is in the house
Ketxxx said:
The GUI thing is a fact, people I speak to that have used Vista for some time still do not like the GUI - its a mess.
Ok maybe the rest is true for others but you don't seem to grasp that the GUI is an opinion and not a fact since I could say I think the mona lisa is a terrible piece of art and that would not be a fact it would be a matter of opinion. If 5 billion people said the vista GUI is ugly and 1 Billion said it wasn't it would be an opinion. I compared XP being bloated to older operating systems compared to win95, XP is several times larger, and it happens with games as well, we are now seeing 15 gb games coming on two dual layer dvd's while games used to be able to fit on floppy disks.
Posted on Reply
#6
Mussels
Moderprator
most people who complain about crysis being slower in vista over XP, are in fact forgetting that the game defaults to DX10 mode... in several installs on my systems i didnt actually have the games explorer icon to run DX9 mode, and had to make a shortcut with a command to force it.

90% of users simply double click the icon or the start button from the CD/DVD, without checking what DX mode its in.
Posted on Reply
#7
MKmods
Case Mod Guru
great post btarunr
Posted on Reply
#8
DrPepper
The Doctor is in the house
Mussels said:
most people who complain about crysis being slower in vista over XP, are in fact forgetting that the game defaults to DX10 mode... in several installs on my systems i didnt actually have the games explorer icon to run DX9 mode, and had to make a shortcut with a command to force it.

90% of users simply double click the icon or the start button from the CD/DVD, without checking what DX mode its in.
Yeah that's what I used to do then i realised running it in dx9 mode made the fps on par with xp.
Posted on Reply
#9
Ketxxx
Heedless Psychic
farlex85 said:
How is disliking the GUI a fact? Even if it is the popular opinion, that doesn't make it a fact. I love the GUI, it isn't a mess at all, so.........

Gaming performance isn't inferior at all. I haven't ever had to crank down any settings. The only thing I can't do is AA in Crysis (can't do that in XP either). Other than that I run it in extreme (config mod) or very high on everything and enjoy it very well. Every other game I can completely max out w/ AA and all. Then again, I care really only about true real world performance (my experience playing the game, not at all based on fps). Again, not a fact........

Xp is very bloated compared to 2000. It's progress, more features, more hardware, progressively more "bloated."

Majority maybe reported problems when the os was first released, no longer the case I would suspect. I don't have exact statistics, if you do then show me, so again, not a fact........
Plenty is a fact. A statistical majority, regardless of if its an opinion or not, makes it a fact. I'm not going to sit here providing endless links, its an inefficient waste of my time. I'm up to date through my own research and googling. If you want to see things for yourself do as I did, research, and read highly acreditied assessments from various IT professionals instead of buying into MS propaganda.
Posted on Reply
#10
DrPepper
The Doctor is in the house
So statistically if 95% of the world say that the United States is in fact a pancake and not a country it must be a fact. This is about the gui being ugly is a fact and not opinion.
Posted on Reply
#11
farlex85
Ketxxx said:
Plenty is a fact. A statistical majority, regardless of if its an opinion or not, makes it a fact. I'm not going to sit here providing endless links, its an inefficient waste of my time. I'm up to date through my own research and googling. If you want to see things for yourself do as I did, research, and read highly acreditied assessments from various IT professionals instead of buying into MS propaganda.
I really have no idea how what you mean here. Your saying if the majority of people hold a certain belief, even though it remains an opinion, it also becomes a fact? That's just nonsensical. A fact that many hold that opinion maybe, but that doesn't make it unconditionally true, as would be the case w/ a fact. Review the meaning of the two words maybe. I don't need endless links, just the one showing the majority of vista users have problems. I have no problem believing many dislike vista, perhaps even the majority of IT professionals. But that doesn't make it bad for all.
Posted on Reply
#12
Mussels
Moderprator
"A statistical majority, regardless of if its an opinion or not, makes it a fact."

thats the most twisted, irrational logic i've seen in a long time. It doesnt make it anywhere near a fact, at all.
Posted on Reply
#13
imperialreign
Ketxxx said:
DX10 does not quite run on XP, to date most of "DX10 only" features are nothing more than DX9c being pushed to its limits. This includes Crysis. When you hack Crysis for XP there its literally 1 or 2 options that will ONLY run under DX10, however neither of these options seem to impact performance or visual quality in any way what so ever.

I used XP before SP1, and I have to say regardless of its flaws at the time XP was still far better than Vista on release. I also firmly think XP was far better than Vista when SP1 was released compared to Vista and its SP1. This is all generally backed up in all kinds of articals across the web.
I agree - I was only trying to compare Vistas issues relativelly to XP's initial release; but still, XP was a lot better off, and I don't remember as many driver issues on the 3rd party side with XP's release as compared to Vista's problems . . .

To the DX10 thing, I was referring to the Alky Project, which was an attempt to enable DX10 libraries to run on WIN XP - not the means of "hacking" a game like Crysis to enable DX10-esque features on XP. One thing is for sure, though, with users - if there's a will, there's a way.
The audio issue is a big thing IMO. Vista just plain sucks. Why bother with a very expensive soundcard if Vista is going to fuck it up and cripple it? Not a bad onboard audio solution by any means, I tried Vista with my Crosshair which uses an ADI 1988B CODEC, and dear god, the sound quality was absolutely horrible, massively muffled and distorted sounding. Back to XP all was well, clear, crystal sounds. All in all like you I'll stand by my original statement - I hope whoever had the moronic idea to drop hardware sound acceleration got fired. I would go into more details, but I'm saving my artillerary for if a certain LindseyM_WindowsTeam dares to step into the shadow of my domain :cool:

Oh and ADI aren't among the best onboard audio solutions - they are THE best :D
I agree here as well, and I'm refraining from getting further onto my soap box in regards to Vista and audio . . . I've beaten that topic so many times it isn't even funny. All I'll say is that MS effed up because they were in a rush to release a waaayyyy behind schedule OS . . .
Posted on Reply
#14
HAL7000
LindseyM_WindowsTeam said:
My name is Lindsey and I work with the Windows Vista team. I would be happy to share our customer videos from the Mojave Experiment. They can be found at MojaveExperiment.com.
Lindsey, I just got back from a business trip and read your post. Please read this whole thread before posting. And if you did , please read it again.
You video/ commercial that I saw on TV in the hotel was enlightening. It showed how dumb a company could be by making their customers/ consumers look even dumber. Does MS get off on this crap? I may not be a rocket scientist but if I was MS I would stop this campaign showing stupidity as a highlight to recognizing Vista. Tell MS to call Steve and then ask him how to make one OS for a fair price.
Posted on Reply
#15
DrPepper
The Doctor is in the house
HAL7000 said:
Tell MS to call Steve and then ask him how to make one OS for a fair price.
OSX might be cheap but you can only use it on expensive apple made hardware so in the end you have a more expensive mac just with a cheaper os.
Posted on Reply
#16
TheGuruStud
DrPepper said:
OSX might be cheap but you can only use it on expensive apple made hardware so in the end you have a more expensive mac just with a cheaper os.
While noobs have to deal with that, we don't. Leo4all FTMFW!
Posted on Reply
#17
DrPepper
The Doctor is in the house
Holy crap i've been waiting for something like that for years. Downloading it now and going to install it on my other HDD and hope it works.
Posted on Reply
#18
TheGuruStud
DrPepper said:
Holy crap i've been waiting for something like that for years. Downloading it now and going to install it on my other HDD and hope it works.
You can check your hardware compatibility on wiki. http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/HCL_10.5.2
Then you can see what patches you may need, but leo does come with a lot of drivers.
Posted on Reply
#19
HAL7000
DrPepper said:
OSX might be cheap but you can only use it on expensive apple made hardware so in the end you have a more expensive mac just with a cheaper os.
I was just making a point that apple has their shit together concerning a OS for their system.

MS has to many version$ and rakes in everyone's ca$h buying them. MS now with the Mojave experiment will be that much more enlightened...bullsh*t. The blind idiots.
I use MS because I game, if I did not game as much as I do I would have a apple. I am forced to continue using MS until someone out their gets it together.

So what point are you making?
Posted on Reply
#20
Mussels
Moderprator
HAL7000 said:
I was just making a point that apple has their shit together concerning a OS for their system.

MS has to many version$ and rakes in everyone's ca$h buying them. MS now with the Mojave experiment will be that much more enlightened...bullsh*t. The blind idiots.
I use MS because I game, if I did not game as much as I do I would have a apple. I am forced to continue using MS until someone out their gets it together.

So what point are you making?
apple has a fairly crap OS. it only works on their specific hardware and does nothing new compared to windows - it uses just as much resources and crashes just as much - go check youtube, its full of hilarious videos... such as apple safari web browser crashing upon entering the apple store.
Posted on Reply
#23
HAL7000
Mussels said:
apple has a fairly crap OS. it only works on their specific hardware and does nothing new compared to windows - it uses just as much resources and crashes just as much - go check youtube, its full of hilarious videos... such as apple safari web browser crashing upon entering the apple store.
you miss the point I was making...I am not here to debate the integrity of the OS X Leopard for mac but was pointing out that MS needs to get into the same way of thinking for x86 machines.

One OS for a mac

One OS for a x86 machine

Then MS can commit all their intense thought...cough ..cough into getting that OS right. Vista was promised to the end users to end the compatibility issues we went through before its release. Vista was the Holy Grail,,,well it fell short and has more versions than ever before.

So again, call Steve and ask him how he does it Microsoft because you sure haven't got it together yet.
Posted on Reply
#24
candle_86
Well MS kinda had to split them, when the 9x Kernal vanished it left it all on the NT Kernal, which has always had mutliple distros.

This would be how this goes that MS sees it ok


Windows 3.1 - Windows 95 - Windows 98 - Windows Me - Windows XP Home - Windows Vista Home Premium

Windows NT 3.1 - Windows NT 3.51 - Windows NT 4.0 Professional - Windows 2000 Professional - Windows XP Professional - Windows Vista Ultimate

Windonws 2000 Enterprise Edition - Windows XP Enterprise Edition - Windows Vista Buissiness.

The others fit it also of course, Home Basic has everything Home Premium does minus Aero Glass, it uses the least amount of resources of any windows versions except starter and is designed for older computers. But When the Bussiness world mergerd with the home world it made things alot more complex for the Operating system. You don't see Mac's like this because untill 2-3 years ago they where seen only as media editing computers and still mostly are. The bussiness world left Mac in the 90's to use Linux or Windows.
Posted on Reply
#25
HAL7000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows#Versions

Release date Product name Version Notes Last IE
November 1985 Windows 1.01 1.01 Unsupported -
November 1987 Windows 2.03 2.03 Unsupported -
March 1989 Windows 2.11 2.11 Unsupported -
May 1990 Windows 3.0 3.0 Unsupported -
March 1992 Windows 3.1x 3.1 Unsupported 5
October 1992 Windows For Workgroups 3.1 3.1 Unsupported 5
July 1993 Windows NT 3.1 NT 3.1 Unsupported 5
December 1993 Windows For Workgroups 3.11 3.11 Unsupported 5
January 1994 Windows 3.2 (released in Simplified Chinese only) 3.2 Unsupported 5
September 1994 Windows NT 3.5 NT 3.5 Unsupported 5
May 1995 Windows NT 3.51 NT 3.51 Unsupported 5
August 1995 Windows 95 4.0.950 Unsupported 5
July 1996 Windows NT 4.0 NT 4.0.1381 Unsupported 6
June 1998 Windows 98 4.10.1998 Unsupported 6
May 1999 Windows 98 SE 4.10.2222 Unsupported 6
February 2000 Windows 2000 NT 5.0.2195 Extended Support until July 13, 2010[17] 6
September 2000 Windows Me 4.90.3000 Unsupported 6
October 2001 Windows XP NT 5.1.2600 Current for SP2 and SP3 (RTM and SP1 unsupported). 8
March 2003 Windows XP 64-bit Edition 2003 NT 5.2.3790 Unsupported 6
April 2003 Windows Server 2003 NT 5.2.3790 Current for SP1, R2, SP2 (RTM unsupported). 8
April 2005 Windows XP Professional x64 Edition NT 5.2.3790 Current 8
July 2006 Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs NT 5.1.2600 Current -
November 2006 (volume licensing)
January 2007 (retail) Windows Vista NT 6.0.6000 Current. Version Changed to NT 6.0.6001 with SP1 (February 4th 08) 8
July 2007 Windows Home Server NT 5.2.4500 Current 8
February 2008 Windows Server 2008 NT 6.0.6001 Current 8
2010 (planned) Windows 7 (codenamed Blackcomb, then Vienna) NT 6.1.6574.1 (M1 beta release) Future release


Not to include the other versions of versions...lol
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment