Compartilhar via

What do people really think of Vista - Mojave

  • Artigo

Unless this is the first post you've read here you'll know that I like Windows Vista, not because I work for Microsoft but on it's own merits. (I'm sure I've said before I work for Microsoft because I like the products and the thinking behind them , not the other way round).

You'll also know that I'm convinced that a lot (not all, but a lot) of negative perception about Vista is down to ignorance, and problems of a bad press.

Someone had a bright idea. Lets take people who don't know Vista and ask them about their view of it. Then lets show them Vista and see what they think; but lets not tell them it is Vista. Lets tell them they're looking at a future Microsoft OS codenamed .... Mojave.

You can see the results of this experiment here https://www.mojaveexperiment.com/ 

CNET had a teaser about this story last week , but the website has only gone live in the last few hours. IT Wire has the story, so does Daily Tech.

 

Technorati Tags: Microsoft,Windows Vista,Mojave

Comments

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    I think this has been a very interesting exchange of views. There is clearly plenty wrong with the way we have failed to encourage as many people as we'd wished to actually TRY Windows Vista. Jon & Thomas> It helps that you have taken the time to express your frustration - I have asked PR to read this post just in case they haven't already done so. Melissa> I too work at Microsoft as an Evangelist so clearly have a bias - I HAVE run Vista for a very long time and hence as you suggested I HAVE seen significant improvements in that time. Unlike James I come from a UNIX background (both as an administrator and developer), I DO have experience of OSX and multiple current LINUX distributions. There are things I like about each operating system. I find Windows Vista is a more productive environment. If you have more than a handful of machines then Microsoft's Active Directory really comes into it's own and I haven't seen anything comparable built into any of the other operating systems mentioned in this series of comments. Being able to define the required configuration of as many machines as you choose and organise them into logical groups (organisational units) and apply subsets of configuration settings accordingly is incredibly powerful. Active Directory can be easily configured to centrally manage the power profiles of each machine too. Windows Vista's built-in and freely downloadable (Windows Automated Installation Kit - WAIK) remove much of the headache of building, configuring and deploying images. Taking the consumer perspective - with Windows Vista I CAN CHOOSE from a vast range of vendors and machine models - the same is true of LINUX - if I want a machine that can run OSX then I HAVE TO BUY APPLE (or from a single 3rd party who are likely to be sued into submission) - this seriously limits my choice. My experience is that most people I know who've tried Vista really like it without any external influence coaching them. Many people who haven't actually tried Vista harbour bad feelings about it. There is plenty of third party evidence to agree with my view that Windows Vista is without question the most secure and most productive version of Windows.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Melissa, do you not see a flaw in the argument that say "hey it's great having a Mac because I can run Windows apps". So you licence Windows, over and above the higher cost of hardware, rather than buying a Windows PC in the first place ... Nick. You missed a zero. Vista users are running at about 80% satisfaction. Thomas. I think vista gets a bad press. Jon's pointed out why that is our fault.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    July 30, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    July 30, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    July 30, 2008
    Sad to say but the link works ad well as Vista: It doesn't. "You can see the results of this experiment" I can only see a bottle filling and a number going to hundred. Vista doesn't work at all at my workplace. The company made a mistake by changing to Vista.

  • Anonymous
    July 30, 2008
    Sad to say but the link works ad well as Vista: It doesn't. "You can see the results of this experiment" I can only see a bottle filling and a number going to hundred. Vista doesn't work at all at my workplace. The company made a mistake by changing to Vista.

  • Anonymous
    July 30, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    July 31, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    July 31, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    July 31, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    July 31, 2008
    Here's an idea Melissa. If you don't like Vista then don't use it and don't waste your time writing about how you don't like it! The Windows ‘Mojave’ experiment was a clever marketing idea but makes a good point. If people can see the quality of the product and ignore the rumour mill then they will like it! Personally I am a huge fan of Vista/2008 over XP/2003. I have been using it in full production now since SP1 became avaliable (the slow file operations pre-SP1 was a sticking point for me). I would like to see some improvements to the RSAT and WDS features but expect these will come over time as they have done with pervious versions of Windows.

  • Anonymous
    July 31, 2008
    Wil Shipley has a pretty good commentary on why the Mojave Experiment is bad science <http://wilshipley.com/blog/2008/07/mojave-experiment-bad-science-bad.html>.  Like the Pepsi challenge, that's not to say it's not good marketing.

  • Anonymous
    August 01, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    August 02, 2008
    James, Sorry, no, I don't see the flaw at all.  For one thing, "buying a Windows PC in the first place" doesn't give you OS X. I like the fact that I can run Windows, but to be honest I have it more because I can, than because I need it.    The fact that I can run practically anything that runs under Windows doesn't mean that I find myself needing to do so on a regular basis.  There are a few use cases, such as testing websites under Internet Explorer, but frankly they're pretty rare.  But mostly I just boot Windows every so often to apply updates and then shut it down.  (FWIW, it's a similar story for Ubuntu Linux.)  For me, the real "cost" is not price of a Windows License (which amounts to zero in my case), but the 4GB of diskspace it takes on my 160GB disk.  Other people will have a different story, and might make different choices. For people switching from Windows to the Mac, relatively seamless virtualization makes life much easier.  If you have some enterprise software that is Windows only, that used to be a problem, but now you can just have a virtual machine running Windows, and that VM will be able to see your Mac filesystem, you'll be able to copy and paste between the two, and the application window from your Windows app will commingle happily with your other windows (except for the drastically different chrome).  In a lot of ways, it's like Apple's "Classic" environment that supported the transition from OS 9 to OS X (see John Gruber's 2006 post http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/windows_the_new_classic ). But some people do buy Macs just to run Windows (and some of those people work at Microsoft), because the machines are nicely designed and work well.  At one point, the MacBook Pro was the fastest laptop for running Vista, something Apple made a lot of hay on in one of their ad campaigns after PC World recommended it.  As I said in my last comment, price isn't everything -- if it costs a little more, the fact that you don't get any extraneous shovelware and you do get a proper Windows install disk might make it worth the extra money for some people. Anyway, my point here was not that everyone should run out and buy a Mac.  My point was more that people who only know Windows have certain kinds of myopia.  For example, in another recent posting, you said, "Every [new operating system release] does more, but demands more hardware to do it. Fact of life", and I was struck by the fact that it may be a fact of life in the Windows world, but it isn't elsewhere.  For some operating systems, the user community expects new OS releases to run faster on the same hardware, and usually gets their wish.  This, what sounded like a general statement was actually Windows specific, since what you were really saying was, "Every release of Windows does more, but demands more hardware to do it. Fact of life". I'm sure I have my own myopia, but at least I do use other things besides OS X enough to be fairly familiar with them, and I'm mostly aware enough of the things I don't know not to make potentially inaccurate sweeping generalizations.

  • Anonymous
    August 02, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    August 03, 2008
    James. No, I didn't miss a zero.  8%.  http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/143960/leopard_beats_vista_for_corporate_satisfaction.html

  • Anonymous
    August 11, 2008
    The comment has been removed