Print 54 comment(s) - last by Wiggy Mcshades.. on Jul 23 at 11:12 AM

Microsoft's Kevin Turner
Perhaps you could say that implies that Microsoft thinks Apple will rebound from problems?

In the realm of bold statements, you might expect Microsoft's vocal and boisterous CEO Steve Ballmer to be sounding off.  But instead it was mustachioed chief operating officer Kevin Turner who was playing the axman leveling a wild statement against one of Microsoft's chief rivals.

Speaking about the Windows Phone 7 series, which will be released over the holiday season, Turner remarked, "It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that."

The remark was not first time Microsoft admitted that Vista -- which never passed its predecessor Windows XP and was swiftly passed by its successor Windows 7 -- was far from a success.  Ballmer had previously bemoaned that Vista was "not executed well."

It is also unsurprising that the iPhone 4 would be receiving criticism.  From Apple's arrogant approach to antenna issues (it's all in your head -- the phone is just drawing the signal bars wrong) which yielded a new class action suit, to proximity sensor issues, the iPhone 4 is coming under increased scrutiny.  Even the typically pro-Apple 
Consumer Reports, despite offering overall praise for the phone's hardware, said it could not recommend it because of the severe antenna problems.

What is perhaps surprising is that Microsoft would be the one to criticize Apple's phone debacle.  Microsoft just had its own phone bungle when its 2-year long Kin project (stemming from the $500M+ USD Danger acquisition) ended after two months in a train wreck.  Estimates indicate that just over 8,000 Kin phones were sold.  Much of the reason for the failure was reportedly due to Microsoft's insistence that Danger port its code to Windows CE.

Furthermore, Microsoft has even shown close to showing admiration for its rival's success in the smartphone sphere.  It has said that it is "following in Apple's line" in releasing a feature incomplete phone (in its opinion) early, and then filling in the holes.  It is also embracing Apple's approach of censoring adult materials, and even joined in the criticism of Adobe's Flash platform.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Archibald Gates on 7/14/2010 5:26:55 PM , Rating: 2
The new buzzword for Epic Fail?

RE: Vista?
By transamdude95 on 7/14/2010 5:39:37 PM , Rating: 5
I don't know about that. Vista wasn't as bad as the rap it gets. I think even if Windows 7 would have come out after XP, it would have fallen flat. XP was quick, cheap, and widely used. Hard to follow it up.

I hope Apple takes enough of a hit off this mess that it knocks them back to Earth (and maybe with all their devoted junkies, too).

RE: Vista?
By icanhascpu on 7/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: Vista?
By Fanon on 7/14/2010 5:59:15 PM , Rating: 5
What people seem to forget is XP has the same problems Vista had. The OS wasn't the problem. 3rd party software was the problem.

RE: Vista?
By Solandri on 7/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: Vista?
By seamonkey79 on 7/14/2010 8:13:38 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, I find it ironic that the biggest 'problem' with Vista is that it broke software because the OS functioned much like Linux and Unix based OS's have since forever.

RE: Vista?
By inighthawki on 7/14/2010 8:20:59 PM , Rating: 4
No, hate to say it but this is one of those occasions where "everyone else" was wrong. No app developer should have designed the application to run in admin mode in the first place. This is by NO means Vista's fault for upping security. If you don't program properly/securely you can't blame it on the OS developer when they enforce that behavior.

RE: Vista?
By chemist1 on 7/14/2010 10:00:39 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree with inighthawki that MS was right to up security, and enforce that. Lord knows they needed it. But let's not let MS off the hook here and blame the developers. Until Vista, Windows operating systems were designed to have applications that were written for them run using root privileges (which was precisely the truck-sized security hole they decided to fix with Vista).

Incidentally, this is one of the key reasons OSX has had superior security to Windows (those who argue that it's simply security via low market share notwithstanding): OSX, like (as I understand it) all Unix and Linux-based operating systems, is designed for applications to be installed without root privileges, thus minimizing the damage that a malicious application can inflict. [Yes, there are rare applications, like Fink, that require root privileges on OSX--but, in requiring such, they force the user to set a root password, etc.; i.e., the user is unlikely to be tricked into installing malicious software that requires root privileges on OSX, unlike Windows XP where, by default, all apps were accorded it.]

RE: Vista?
By noirsoft on 7/14/2010 11:15:26 PM , Rating: 4
But let's not let MS off the hook here and blame the developers

Given that Microsoft told developers before XP came out to stop relying on admin access to things and to fully test their software in a limited user account, and also informed them that in the OS after XP, such limitations would be fully enforced, I believe it is 100% reasonable to blame 3rd party developers for failing to have their software work under Vista properly.

RE: Vista?
By chemist1 on 7/15/2010 12:25:22 AM , Rating: 2
quoting: "I believe it is 100% reasonable to blame 3rd party developers for failing to have their software work under Vista properly."

I agree with you. But I was referring not to the Vista-not-working-with-apps issue (which is of course the app developer's fault if they require admin privs.), but rather the security issue. I was unaware that MS also warned developers not to use admin priv. for XP, so thanks for that info.

So, I'd modify my statement to read as follows: Let's not let MS off the hook for security issues, with its earlier operating systems, resulting from the easy access to admin. priv. by application software---since, historically, until Vista, they allowed that access, which is something they never should have permitted from the start.

RE: Vista?
By Solandri on 7/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: Vista?
By Solandri on 7/15/2010 6:23:32 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, that's kinda long so let me summarize: There's "where do we want to go?" and "how do we get there?". I completely agree with the folks here saying that Vista's security model was a good answer to "where do we want to go?". Where Vista failed was in the "how do we get there?".

RE: Vista?
By icanhascpu on 7/15/2010 1:35:51 AM , Rating: 2
No, I remember when XP came out. 'WINDOWS 2000 FOR LIFE!' was heard through each dorm, but XP did not have the issues Vista did. Vista was second only to WinME. Sluggish, and quaky and unfinished. The 3rd party issues were just the icing.

You can pretend it was a simple matter of people 'not remembering' but the fact of the matter is I had to stay with XP after being in Vista for months, and it was just subpar. The switch from XP to Win7 64bit was good, and I did not have the sluggish feeling Vista had.

Vista = Crap
Win7 = Mature polish OS.

RE: Vista?
By Bateluer on 7/15/2010 2:13:29 AM , Rating: 2
Rose colored glasses? XP was just as buggy and quirky when it was released, and took until SP2 and a few dozen hot fixes to get it into the polished state of today.

Everyone always seems to overlook a few facts. XP, released in 2002, was designed to run on hardware from the 2000 era. On the majority of the systems at the time, entry level machines, they were only equipped with 256MB of RAM. 256MB of RAM made for a fairly smooth experience in Win2k. It did not in XP, 512 was needed for the same level. More was preferable. For Vista, 512 was akin to 256 in XP, and once again, the majority of entry level machines at Vista's release used 512MB of RAM.

Windows 2000 was a great OS, and I stuck with it until I built an entirely new rig in late 2003 and purchased a full license for XP Pro along with it. Got Vista Business 64 on a student license and haven't looked back, its stability has been far superior to anything I got in XP.

Also got 7 on a student license. Woot.

RE: Vista?
By SteelyKen on 7/15/2010 3:49:43 AM , Rating: 3
Actually icanhascpu remembers better than you and I will gladly back him up. I was here then and I can assure you the XP launch and its first year, while not silky smooth, was not in the same ballpark as Vista's. I will grant you it's problems were as much perception as reality, but it still was not "the same" as XP.

In fact, in terms of public perception and on a lesser scale overall performance and compatibility Vista was more like Win ME than XP. So while Vista was not the comparative disaster of ME, it was following a much stauncher predecessor in XP than the latter faced in following the trifecta of Win 98SE, Win 2000 and Win ME. Windows 2000 was certainly as stable (probably more so) and leaner, but its relative lack of gaming compatibility (yes, it got better by SP2) was a sticking point. XP stood pretty much alone at the Vista launch and was a much tougher act to follow.

RE: Vista?
By jabber on 7/15/2010 5:34:26 AM , Rating: 2
Well that but I think the big problem was that there was a more than 5 year gap after XP came out till Vista arrived.

Thats a long time for an OS to get entranched and folks got too used to it.

Up till that point it was a new OS every 2 years or so.

Thats what MS wants to get back to.

XP got a lucky break thats all.

RE: Vista?
By Archibald Gates on 7/14/2010 5:48:45 PM , Rating: 4
I have it... it it's a curse! Like a disease... I hate it i hate it.. my precious! I miss my DOS.

RE: Vista?
By phatboye on 7/14/2010 6:01:36 PM , Rating: 3
Vista was bad when it was first released. It only got better after after MS released those two service packs which fixed a lot of the problems that were present in sp0.

But not everything that went wrong with Vista was MS's fault, a lot of problems stemmed from buggy drivers and poorly coded software. So had Win7 came out directly after XP instead of Vista I don't think Win7 would have gotten as bad a rep as Vista did but I also don't think it would has been as good as it is with the current situation.

RE: Vista?
By StevoLincolnite on 7/14/2010 11:00:19 PM , Rating: 2
But not everything that went wrong with Vista was MS's fault, a lot of problems stemmed from buggy drivers and poorly coded software.

I actually never had much of a problem with software or hardware compatibility with Vista, what I did dislike was:

* The networking, tried setting up a software bridge, it took me over an hour (Because it kept saying there was a problem) to do the exact same thing as I did in 2 minuets on a Windows 7 machine.
Eventually got it to work by deleting the bridge and all network adapters and starting again, even then it still didn't work, had to "repair" the connections first.

* HDD Crunching.

* Hidden Menu's, I mean common, why the hell did they bury stuff like the screen resolution option in a ton of menu's?

* Doesn't play well with low memory machines. (Like my file server with only 512mb of ram, and a Dual Pentium 3 Tualatin~S 1.4ghz).

* Battery life, consumes the battery faster than XP or Windows 7.

All in all, Vista was a "Great" Operating system, and as things matured and supported Windows 7, that support automatically extended to Windows Vista.

But alas, I do find it difficult to use Vista now with having used Windows 7 since the early Beta days, the whole windows snapping to portions of the screen depending which part of the screen you drag it to made all the difference for me, and you don't realize how much you use such a feature until you go without it.

RE: Vista?
By Hyperion1400 on 7/15/2010 7:53:28 AM , Rating: 2
All in all, Vista was a "Great" Operating system, and as things matured and supported Windows 7, that support automatically extended to Windows Vista.

I think you got that backwards?

RE: Vista?
By Aloonatic on 7/15/2010 3:58:37 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, we've all heard the poor driver support excuse, and to be fair, there is a lot of substance to it.

However, that doesn't explain why it took a service pack to get networked printers to work properly.

Why it took a service pack to get simple file movements to work properly.

Why it took 2 service packs to get folder compression to work properly.

There was, and still is, a lot wrong with Vista. I am stuck with having to support it at my place of work now, and it is a pain. Yes, not as bad as it was and pre SP1a XP wasn't much fun either but that doesn't excuse Vista being such a pain in the bum too.

It's OK to use now, but still so many things just don't work well, and the "improvements" in the user experience certainly weren't worth the pain. That is where I think that Win 7 might have had something of an advantage over Vista, had it been released after XP. The user experience improvements which might be small, but are noticeable, that came with Win7 would have at least given people something to have consoled themselves with. In saying that, I think that you are somewhat correct is saying that Win7 would have had a lot of the problems that Vista has, but you will struggle to argue that without giving succor to those who say that Vista was just Win7 beta.

I think that describing it as Win7 beta is a little harsh, but Vista did do a job of getting programmers to change the way that they do things and acted as buffer for drivers, as I assume that Vista and Win7 drivers are somewhat similar, as Win2k and XP drivers were.

Anyway, soon it will be behind us, in a few years Vista will be a memory and I for one will not miss it.

RE: Vista?
By really on 7/14/2010 6:44:25 PM , Rating: 2
XP quick? Have you used XP since Windows 7 came out. To me it is night and day. I honestly wonder how I ever thought XP was fast. In the time it takes XP to startup I can start Windows 7 answer several email and shut it back down again and I haven't even had a chance to login to XP yet.

RE: Vista?
By sebmel on 7/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: Vista?
By goatfajitas on 7/14/2010 11:45:30 PM , Rating: 2
uhhh... you do realize you are talking about 2 OS's released 8 years aprt right? 8 years of hardware improvements and the quoted speed is really more relevent to what is available at the time.

YOu can put 7 ony any older PC and it runs better than XP. I have personally put it on a Pentium 4 1.8hz machine with 512mb ram and and 40gb hard drive - its faster than XP. 2 exactly the same OEM systems side by side. 7 boots faster, launches apps faster

RE: Vista?
By StevoLincolnite on 7/15/2010 12:57:53 AM , Rating: 2
Running Windows XP on such a system is painful at-best.
I remember running XP on a Pentium 2 300, 128mb of ram and a TNT2 M64, I could actually take a coffee break while restarting the OS on that rig.

You need to double those minimum requirements to even have a remotely enjoyable experience with Windows XP.

Windows 7 on the other hand... When I was testing the Beta I ran it on a Pentium 3 800mhz system, 768mb of ram and a Geforce 6200 AGP without an issue, besides gaming it was notably faster in day-to-day usage. (Web surfing, even turning the computer on, and yes you can run it on a system below the minimum system requirements.)

Plus Windows 7 looks better, and makes life allot easier. Great networking, mouse gestures (Shake a window and all windows minimize, bring a window to the edge of the screen and it will automatically re-size), pin programs to the task bar, better hardware support, and 64bit driver support is actually great. (Which is non-existent for XP systems)

RE: Vista?
By piroroadkill on 7/15/2010 3:46:26 AM , Rating: 2
It's the RAM that kills it. 128MB just isn't enough to run XP without swapping. 192MB is just about okay, but with a minimum of services. You really need 512MB to consider it a usable desktop system

RE: Vista?
By Ard on 7/14/2010 6:50:42 PM , Rating: 3
I absolutely agree with you. I'm not sure why Vista has the reputation it does. It was nowhere near as bad as everyone made it out to be. It definitely wasn't WinME. In fact, I'd say Vista was a damn good OS. Hell, without it we wouldn't have Win7. Did Vista have some rough edges? Sure. Show me an OS that doesn't have rough edges.

RE: Vista?
By plewis00 on 7/14/2010 6:57:33 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with SP2 it's not too bad, we use it a lot at work because during the period we were purchasing new computers, they all came with Vista pre-installed. But now looking back and with XP patches and support declining, it is becoming less stable.

The whole Vista issue, I believe began with the sluggish behaviour on high-end hardware (Pentium 4 at the time), it really wants dual-core CPUs and lots of RAM, which are cheap now but weren't when it launched, the over-intrusive nature of UAC which insisted on halting so much and like someone else mentioned poorly-coded drivers and third-party apps (which is where the unfairness lies).

RE: Vista?
By afkrotch on 7/14/2010 7:07:08 PM , Rating: 2
Vista was a huge pile of donkey crap when it released. It wasn't until SP1 that it became somewhat decent. It still was a resource hog though.

RE: Vista?
By Azsen on 7/14/2010 11:36:54 PM , Rating: 3
I got given a free Vista Ultimate SP1 DVD at a Microsoft conference a few years ago and have been using it ever since on my 4 year old laptop. When SP2 came out I upgraded to that and I haven't had any issues at all really. I can play games like COD MW2, Battlefield 2, Crysis, Half Life 2, HAWX etc and everything is pretty snappy in general.

Intel Dual Core 1.6Ghz, 128MB Radeon x1600, 3GB RAM

No idea where all the Vista hate came from but it spread around the internet like a virus. There were people who hadn't even used it claiming it was crap just because of what other people had been saying. Maybe the original Vista with no SP was the downfall. However Win 7 was practically built from Vista and everyone just magically claimed it was miles better. I think MS just hired better marketers.

RE: Vista?
By finbarqs on 7/15/2010 1:23:57 AM , Rating: 2
Let's not forget that if it wasn't for Vista, 64-bit OS's wouldn't have been so popular! XP x64 was a big mess...

RE: Vista?
By Taft12 on 7/15/2010 10:09:53 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not surprised your rush to defend Vista has been ranked up to 5, but Vista was a complete and utter failure and that has nothing to do with the actual product quality.

It had and continues to have a terrible reputation it will never shake, and it never achieved significant market penetration (or made much money for MS).

BUSINESS FAIL and that's all that really matters.

"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki