Google is spreading its advertising reach by buying a company which provides adverts within computer games.
According to Red Herring, which broke the story late last week, the search giant paid $23m for Adscape Media.
Adscape Media has offices in San Francisco and Canada. In February last year, it showed off technology based on patents from 2002, including a way to link virtual game adverts to the real world.
It aims to work with games developers and publishers as well as ad and media agencies.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Microsoft employs bologna defense against VMware
In classic Redmond fashion, Microsoft has countered VMware's charges of anticompetitive practices in the server virtualization market by heaving a giant ball of fluff at reporters.
Yesterday, we reported on VMware's new white paper that offers a point-by-point synopsis of how Microsoft makes life difficult on customers trying to use server virtualization technology from more than one vendor. The thrust of VMware's complaint centers on alleged inadequate Microsoft support for VMware customers, restrictive access to Microsoft's future virtualization software APIs and Microsoft's roadblocks that prevent virtual machines moving between physical servers. VMware's arguments seem meaty enough, although we're only mildly sympathetic toward the software maker since it owns the dominant position in the x86 server virtualization market and faces little actual threat from Microsoft at this time.
Microsoft has fought back against VMware's meat with something akin to marketing bologna.
"Microsoft believes the claims made in VMware’s whitepaper contain several inaccuracies and misunderstandings of our current license and use policies, our support policy and our commitment to technology collaboration," said Mike Neil, Microsoft virtualization GM in a statement. "We believe that we are being progressive and fair with our existing licensing and use policies and creating a level playing field for partners and customers. We are deeply committed to providing high-quality technical support to our customers who are utilizing virtualization technology. In addition, we are committed to working collaboratively with industry leaders to foster an environment of interoperability and cooperation that best serves our customers."
Through its PR firm, Microsoft declined to make anyone available for an interview to discuss the "inaccuracies and misunderstandings" presented here by VMware.
VMware's dominance of the x86 server virtualization market has in fact forced Microsoft into some progressive postures. Redmond started giving away its Virtual Server software, formed ties with open source rival XenSource and loosened up per processor and per server licensing controls around virtualized software.
Microsoft had a real chance here to keep progressing by providing concrete examples of where VMware's arguments faltered. Instead, it left us all scratching our heads and reading VMware's white paper one more time.
Why would Microsoft even bother to issue such a statement if it's not willing to put someone on the phone for ten minutes?
Off you go, conspiracy theorists.
Microsoft claims it will play nice to resolve its conflict with VMware - an EMC subsidiary - in private.
“We believe it's better to resolve VMware’s claims between our two companies so that we can better serve customers and the industry," Neil added in the statement. "EMC is a long-time partner of Microsoft. We've extended this courtesy to VMware due to our mutual customers and partnership with EMC. We are committed to continuing to collaborate with VMware as we have been doing on regular basis. Consistent with this, Microsoft believes that we will be able to accommodate a mutually agreeable solution between our two companies and clear up any existing misunderstanding with regard to the points raised in the whitepaper.”
Yesterday, we reported on VMware's new white paper that offers a point-by-point synopsis of how Microsoft makes life difficult on customers trying to use server virtualization technology from more than one vendor. The thrust of VMware's complaint centers on alleged inadequate Microsoft support for VMware customers, restrictive access to Microsoft's future virtualization software APIs and Microsoft's roadblocks that prevent virtual machines moving between physical servers. VMware's arguments seem meaty enough, although we're only mildly sympathetic toward the software maker since it owns the dominant position in the x86 server virtualization market and faces little actual threat from Microsoft at this time.
Microsoft has fought back against VMware's meat with something akin to marketing bologna.
"Microsoft believes the claims made in VMware’s whitepaper contain several inaccuracies and misunderstandings of our current license and use policies, our support policy and our commitment to technology collaboration," said Mike Neil, Microsoft virtualization GM in a statement. "We believe that we are being progressive and fair with our existing licensing and use policies and creating a level playing field for partners and customers. We are deeply committed to providing high-quality technical support to our customers who are utilizing virtualization technology. In addition, we are committed to working collaboratively with industry leaders to foster an environment of interoperability and cooperation that best serves our customers."
Through its PR firm, Microsoft declined to make anyone available for an interview to discuss the "inaccuracies and misunderstandings" presented here by VMware.
VMware's dominance of the x86 server virtualization market has in fact forced Microsoft into some progressive postures. Redmond started giving away its Virtual Server software, formed ties with open source rival XenSource and loosened up per processor and per server licensing controls around virtualized software.
Microsoft had a real chance here to keep progressing by providing concrete examples of where VMware's arguments faltered. Instead, it left us all scratching our heads and reading VMware's white paper one more time.
Why would Microsoft even bother to issue such a statement if it's not willing to put someone on the phone for ten minutes?
Off you go, conspiracy theorists.
Microsoft claims it will play nice to resolve its conflict with VMware - an EMC subsidiary - in private.
“We believe it's better to resolve VMware’s claims between our two companies so that we can better serve customers and the industry," Neil added in the statement. "EMC is a long-time partner of Microsoft. We've extended this courtesy to VMware due to our mutual customers and partnership with EMC. We are committed to continuing to collaborate with VMware as we have been doing on regular basis. Consistent with this, Microsoft believes that we will be able to accommodate a mutually agreeable solution between our two companies and clear up any existing misunderstanding with regard to the points raised in the whitepaper.”
Friday, February 23, 2007
DCLICK Ads - Maximize Internet Advertising Traffic AND Website Publisher Inventory
Recently I stumbled across an internet advertising company called DCLICK Ads. http://www.dclickads.com/
DCLICK Ads http://www.dclickads.com/ are not entirely different from lots of other internet advertising companies out there but one or two things certainly did catch my attention.
DCLICK Ads has the usual banner ads, standard text link ads or premium embedded links that majority of the other companies have. But what distinguishes it from the other companies would be the ommission of the auction style bidding for ads that the majority of the pack actually use. What DCLICK Ads has actually done is that they have done away with the auction style and allow the publisher to actually set a price for the ad space. The advertiser will look through the publisher inventory and if the price is suitable, he accepts it. It cuts away with lots of hassle. Alternatively, the advertiser can also choose to set a budget and select a category for which he wants to advertise on. It's actually a win win for both the advertiser and publisher. The advertiser can choose which site he wants to place his ads on and the publisher can decide on the pricing of his ad space. I really like this idea, which is so much different than the big fishes like Goggle Adsense and Adbrite.
I believe that DCLICK Ads is definitely worth a try for both advertisers and publisher alike. Hop on to http://www.dclickads.com/ to check it out.
Advantage Processors High & Low Risk Merchant Account Services
Advantage Processors http://www.advantageprocessors.com/ provide low cost internet credit card processing merchant accounts for both Low Risk and High Risk merchants.
Online merchants all definitely need credit card processing. I mean what's an online store if you can't accept VISA, Mastercard or AMEX?? It's convenience!! I definitely would choose a merchant who accepts credit card rather than a merchant who doesn't. Advantage Processors http://www.advantageprocessors.com/ provide this service for you, online merchants.
But the best part is they also provide the service for HIGH RISK Merchants. Yes!! High risk. Examples:
Higher Risk Mail Order Web Sites (Tangible Goods)
Travel Businesses/Hotels/Travel Agencies
Established Legal Gaming
Offshore/International Credit Card Processing
Adult Merchant Account Solutions
Merchants that were Shut Off
Debt/Collection Agencies
Pre-Paid Telephone Cards
Pharmaceuticals/Online Pharmacy Merchants
Online Dating/Dating Agency/Escort Services
Higher Volume Mail/Telephone Order (MOTO)
High Risk Web Site Offerings
Stop getting turned down by other companies to provide credit card processing for your online store just because you are marked as high risk. Go to Advantage Processors http://www.advantageprocessors.com/ now to register for your merchant account.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Windows Vista Review Part 2: Understanding the Vista Product Editions
Back in 2001, life was easy: Microsoft released Windows XP in just two product editions, Windows XP Home Edition and Windows XP Professional Edition. The difference between the products was fairly obvious, and with its enhanced feature set, XP Pro was the more expensive version, as one might expect. Over time, however, Microsoft muddied the waters with a wealth of new XP product editions. There were three major versions added: Windows XP Media Center Edition (which received three major releases and one minor update between 2002 and 2005), Windows XP Tablet PC Edition (which received two major releases between 2002 and 2005), and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, which took most of XP Pro's feature set and brought it to the x64 hardware platform. Other XP versions, such as XP Embedded and XP Starter Edition, can't really be considered mainstream products.
For Windows Vista, Microsoft surveyed the market and come away with two observations. First, an experiment stratifying the Microsoft Office product line into multiple product editions, or SKUs (Stock Keeping Units, a retailing term), had proven enormously successful. Second, customers were willing to pay a bit more for premium product SKUs, such as XP Media Center Edition, that offered extra features. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Microsoft's experiences over the past few years led directly to the situation we have with Windows Vista: The company has created 6 Vista product editions, two of which can be described as premium versions. Or, if you include the so-called N and K editions (for the European Union and South Korea, respectively), there are actually 9 product editions. Or, if you count the 32-bit and x64 versions separately, there are 17 product editions. Or something.
Don't get bogged down in semantics or complicated counting exercises. With a little bit of knowledge about how these product editions break down and are sold, you can whittle the list down quite a bit very easily. Then, you can evaluate which features are available in which editions and choose the one that's right for you based on your needs.
A product edition matrix
For Windows Vista, Microsoft surveyed the market and come away with two observations. First, an experiment stratifying the Microsoft Office product line into multiple product editions, or SKUs (Stock Keeping Units, a retailing term), had proven enormously successful. Second, customers were willing to pay a bit more for premium product SKUs, such as XP Media Center Edition, that offered extra features. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Microsoft's experiences over the past few years led directly to the situation we have with Windows Vista: The company has created 6 Vista product editions, two of which can be described as premium versions. Or, if you include the so-called N and K editions (for the European Union and South Korea, respectively), there are actually 9 product editions. Or, if you count the 32-bit and x64 versions separately, there are 17 product editions. Or something.
Don't get bogged down in semantics or complicated counting exercises. With a little bit of knowledge about how these product editions break down and are sold, you can whittle the list down quite a bit very easily. Then, you can evaluate which features are available in which editions and choose the one that's right for you based on your needs.
A product edition matrix
Here's how the Windows Vista product editions break down. This chart lists each edition, which XP product editions they most closely compare to, how they are acquired, and other related information.
* Vista Ultimate includes both 32-bit and x64 Setup DVDs. Customers who purchase retail 32-bit versions of Windows Vista Home Basic, Home Premium, or Business can order x64 media from Microsoft for the cost of shipping and handling.
* Vista Ultimate includes both 32-bit and x64 Setup DVDs. Customers who purchase retail 32-bit versions of Windows Vista Home Basic, Home Premium, or Business can order x64 media from Microsoft for the cost of shipping and handling.
Whittling down the choices
Let's immediately cast off a few of the less desirable product editions.
Windows Vista Starter. Since Windows Vista Starter is only available in a limited number of regions and cannot be purchased at retail, we won't discuss that version here any further.
Windows Vista Home Basic N and Business N. Created to satisfy power-hungry antitrust regulators in the EU, the so-called Vista N Editions are just like their related non-N versions, but drop Windows Media Player, Windows Movie Maker, and other Windows Media-related technologies. These products have proven enormously unpopular in Europe for obvious reasons, and I expect that trend not continue. Skip them.
Windows Vista Enterprise. A new offering, Windows Vista Enterprise is available only to Microsoft's Software Assurance (SA) customers via volume licensing. From a functional standpoint, it is very similar to Windows Vista Business, but with a few additional features. I'll highlight those in the tables below.
This leaves most people with four Vista product editions to consider: Windows Vista Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, and Ultimate. But we can trim it even further: Since Vista Home Basic is crippled and does not include some of the best features found in other Windows Vista versions, I have some very basic (ahem) advice: Do not purchase or use Windows Vista Home Basic. It's that simple.
In the end, most Windows users are going to want to choose between Windows Vista Home Premium, Business, and Ultimate. And what's interesting is that the first two of these choices correspond almost perfectly with the two mainstream Windows XP versions that are currently being provided on new PCs today: Windows XP Media Center Edition and XP Professional, respectively. Windows Vista Ultimate is brand new and can be considered a superset of the home-oriented features in Vista Home Premium and the business-oriented features in Vista Business. So those who want it all--and don't mind paying for it--should snag Vista Ultimate. That's the version I'll be using.
Regardless of my opinion, you should make your decision based on which version of Windows Vista meets your needs. And the way to figure that out is to compare which features are available in which Vista product editions. So, in the following tables, you can find that information. Note that individual features will be discussed and rated in later parts of this review.
Comparing the product editions feature-by-feature
In the following tables, logically divided by category, you can see which Vista features are available in which Vista product editions.
User interface features
Security features
Performance features
Reliability features
Internet features
Bundled applications
Digital media features
Networking features
Mobility features
Other Windows Vista features
Other considerations
Beyond the feature lists shown above, there are other issues you should consider when it comes time to migrate to Windows Vista. In addition to simply purchasing a full retail version of any of the Vista product editions, there are various ways in which you can upgrade as well. Each of these methods requires you have some sort of valid current version of Windows. But they can dramatically lower the cost of moving to Vista or, in one case, allow you to later move forward to more powerful Vista product editions.
Consider a Vista Upgrade version
For example, if you'd to upgrade your existing PC from Windows XP (or, in a more limited fashion, Windows 2000 or Windows XP Professional x64 Edition) to a comparable Windows Vista product edition, you can take advantage of the lower cost of a Vista Upgrade version.
People with older Windows versions (9x, Me, NT) do not qualify for upgrade pricing. Windows 2000 and XP x64 users do qualify for upgrade pricing, but they cannot do an inplace upgrade. Instead, they will need to use an Upgrade version of Vista to perform a full-install of the product. Windows XP users, meanwhile, qualify for upgrade pricing and can perform an in-place upgrade (which I don't recommend) or a full install of Vista using an Upgrade version. (I discuss both methods of installing Windows Vista in the next part of this review.)
Express Upgrade
If you buy a new PC with XP preinstalled between October 26, 2006 and March 15, 2007, you may qualify for a free or inexpensive "cross-grade" to Windows Vista thanks to Microsoft's Vista Express Upgrade program.
Customers who purchase PCs with Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005, Professional Edition, Tablet PC Edition 2005, or XP Professional x64 Edition during this timeframe can get a free or reduced-price copy of a comparable Vista product edition. Those who purchase a PC with XP Home Edition preinstalled qualify for half-price upgrades to Windows Vista Home Basic or Home Premium (their choice).
Windows Anytime Upgrade
Those who acquire Windows Vista Home Basic, Home Premium, or Business are eligible for an electronic upgrade to a higher-end Windows Vista product edition through a new Windows feature called Windows Anytime Upgrade. While this feature will not be enabled until January 2007, Microsoft tells me that the pricing will be a bit less expensive than buying a retail boxed copy of the Windows Vista Upgrade version in question.
Windows Vista Home Basic users will be able to use this feature to upgrade to Windows Vista Home Premium or Windows Vista Ultimate. Windows Vista Home Premium and Business customers can use Windows Anytime Upgrade to upgrade to Windows Vista Ultimate. Because all Windows Vista product editions ship with the same bits on the install DVD, Windows Anytime Upgrade is basically just a way to unlock features and purchase a new Product Key.
What's really interesting about these options is that it opens up some weird possibilities. For example, you could purchase a Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005-based PC this holiday season, use the Express Upgrade program to get a copy of Windows Vista Home Premium for the price of shipping, install it, and then use Windows Anytime Upgrade to upgrade that copy of Vista to Windows Vista Ultimate. You know, if you really wanted to.
Windows Vista Review Part 1: Introduction
It's hard to put Windows Vista in perspective. On the one hand, the product has been in development for over five years, which means that Vista had one of the longest development cycles in the 20+ year history of Windows.
Paradoxically, Windows Vista is both revolutionary and evolutionary. While it includes modern OS features, such as a new hardware-based graphical user interface (GUI), Vista will also feel like familiar territory, for the most part, to anyone that's already familiar with Windows XP. And Mac advocates can claim, truthfully, that many of Vista's best features appeared first on Mac OS X, sometimes years ago.
More problematic, over the past five years, many of Windows Vista's best features have been jettisoned, and it's unclear whether they'll ever appear in future Windows versions. Other features, like Internet Explorer (IE) 7, the Avalon and WinFX programming interfaces, the RSS platform, and more have been back-ported to Windows XP and Windows Server 2003, watering down the uniqueness of the Vista platform.
Does any of this really matter to the typical PC user? Perhaps not. As someone who's been dissecting Windows Vista for several years now, the novelty has frankly worn off. So it would be a disservice for me to base my opinions of this system on my belief that it should have shipped two years ago. After all, to the average PC users out there in audience (i.e. most people), Windows Vista is something new. Under the hood, Vista is, in fact, quite different from its predecessors, despite the surface similarities. Indeed, it is to Microsoft's credit that hundreds of millions of Windows users will be able to upgrade or otherwise move to Windows Vista, install and run almost all of their existing applications, hook up and access almost all of their hardware peripherals, and access all of their critical data files and other documents, all without any understanding at all of the major changes that Microsoft has wrought. Microsoft once described Vista as the Windows platform for the next decade. I'm no longer sure this was hyperbole.
These are the things to keep in perspective when considering Windows Vista. It is a complex product, a big product. It's a major Windows update with lots of new functionality and oodles of new features. It's the first Windows version to provide developers with a major new programming model in a decade. It's got an unbelievably long list of extensibility points so that Microsoft and its partners can build off it for years to come. It is, as promised, the biggest new version of Windows since Windows 95. Chances are, if you're reading this site, you're going to upgrade to Vista sometime soon regardless of my opinion. As for the rest of the world, I suspect their next PC purchase will include Windows Vista as well. By this time next year, over 100 million people around the world will be using Windows Vista.
It's incredible, isn't it? The sheer size and scope of Windows Vista makes it difficult to review, to digest, and to understand. If you step back too far, it doesn't look very impressive at all: It's like XP with a spit-shine. But if you get too close, it's easy to get lost in the seemingly never-ending lists of new features. Yep, it's a major Windows version all right. And now it's complete. Let's dive in.
Reviewing Windows Vista
In this multi-part review of Windows Vista, I will attempt to provide you with the information you need to decide whether you want Windows Vista now, in the near future, or later. (Let's face facts: Not ever upgrading isn't really an option.) I'll explain the differences between the various product editions, discuss each of the major new features, and tell you which I think are valuable and which you can safely ignore. I'll discuss Vista's hardware and software compatibility prowess (or lack thereof) and explain why you may want to hold off on that x64 version you've been considering. And by the time I'm done--sometime in the days ahead, but well ahead of Vista's general availability--I hope I'll have communicated why this major new Windows version is so important and, ultimately, so desirable.
The review will be broken down into several parts, which I'll publish over time. This first part of the review is largely introductory material. In Part 2, I'll explain the different Vista product editions and provide you with the simple information you need to determine which version is for you. Part 3 covers the installation process, including interactive setup, upgrading from XP, and even corporate deployment. In Part 4, I'll highlight what I think of as the Vista experience, explaining what you get in the box, the overall look and feel of the new Vista UIs, and how its performance compares with that of previous Windows versions.
Part 5 of this review will focus on new Windows Vista features, including the advances Microsoft has made in digital media, networking and Internet, and security. In Part 6, I'll look at compatibility, both hardware and software, and on both 32-bit (x86) and 64-bit (x64) systems. Part 7 will discuss the dark side of Vista, the inconsistent and undesirable features that will leave you shaking your head. And finally, I'll wrap it up in Part 8 with information about availability and pricing and my conclusions.
A quick look back over the past five years
In mid-2001, my son Mark was three and my daughter hadn't even been born yet. We lived in a different, smaller, home, and the tragedies of 9/11 were still ahead of us. Today, over five years later, much has changed. My son is now over 8 years old and his soon-to-be-five-year-old sister Kelly is like a bossy buddy he can't quite shake. We live in a different house, and though it's supposed to be a better neighborhood, I'm haunted daily by the never-ending sounds of lawn machines, leaf-blowers, or snow removal equipment, depending on the time of year. Put simply, a lot has changed.
In the wider technology world, by mid-2001, Microsoft was getting ready to ship Windows XP and Apple had recently shipped the first version of Mac OS X, a product that was so woefully inadequate that even it's most ardent supporters ruefully referred to it as a public beta. Every year, it seemed, the Linux desktop was poised to take off. That, still, has never happened.
Apple and its supporters will tell you that Apple spent the past five years churning out major new Mac OS X versions while Microsoft fumbled around trying to finish Windows Vista. This is completely untrue. Though I use and respect Mac OS X, virtually every version Apple has shipped since 2001 has been a minor update, akin to a Windows 98 SE or Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2). Meanwhile, Microsoft has pushed an amazing variety of Windows versions out the door since 2001. Some highlights include Windows XP Embedded, Windows XP Media Center Edition (MCE), Windows XP MCE 2004, Windows XP MCE 2005, Windows XP Tablet PC Edition (TPC), Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005, and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition. It has also shipped major updates to its digital media software, including three major updates to Windows Media Player, a major IE release--IE 7--major new client-based security applications and services, including Windows Defender and Windows Live OneCare. And this is just a partial list. The point here is simple: Microsoft hasn't sat still, contrary to the FUD you read online.
So why did Vista take so long? Microsoft will tell you that Vista has really only been in active development since mid-2004, when it "reset" the original Longhorn project and restarted development on the Windows Server 2003 code base. I'd argue that this is a convenient misstatement of the facts: Windows Vista is Longhorn and Longhorn is Windows Vista. In short, Microsoft did take five years to bring Longhorn--sorry, Windows Vista--to market.
As it turns out, the reason why is simple. Microsoft screwed up, plain and simple. Each version of Windows is based on the version that came before it and because Windows Vista was envisioned as a kitchen sink release that would include every major new feature imaginable, it eventually teetered and fell under the weight of the technology Microsoft was heaping upon it. That Vista is now based on the Windows Server 2003 code based and not that of Windows XP is meaningless. When the project started, back in 2001, it was based on Windows XP.
After the reset, Microsoft scaled back the Vista feature-set dramatically and ensured that features were added in a more logical fashion. The two year development time that Microsoft refers to in this case is the most recent two years, the period of time during which Vista got back on track. This is a period of time that Microsoft should be justifiably proud of. The previous three years? Trust me, we'd all like to forget that.
But the problem with the five year gestation isn't that OS X and Linux have caught up and in some ways surpassed Windows, which of course they have in some respects. The problem isn't even that Microsoft promised us the world and then failed to deliver. No, the problem is that there's another OS out there that runs just fine on over 400 million computers around the world. That system is stable, secure, and gets the job done. It's Windows Vista's biggest competitor. To be fair, it's Windows Vista's only competitor. Maybe you've heard of it: It's called Windows XP.
Good enough: The problem with Windows XP
Windows XP is still good enough for most people, and that's got to be a bit alarming to Microsoft at the dawn of the Windows Vista era. Three years ago, when you talked about features like instant desktop search, integrated RSS capabilities, safe Web browsing, and security, Windows Vista was an easy sell. Today, all of those features and more are available on Windows XP (and in other OSes), so the argument for Windows Vista is somewhat diminished.
Too, Windows XP is 100 percent compatible with all of the PC hardware and software out there. While there is little doubt that Windows Vista will improve over time--for example, Microsoft tells me that many hardware drivers will ship between Vista's November 2006 RTM and its January 2007 consumer launch--for the short term at least, it's a distant second to XP in those categories that matter most to many consumers. If you're a gamer, you want to purchase a new game title and not have to worry whether it will run more slowly on Windows Vista, or not at all. And while that honking new PC is really pretty, if the version of IE 7 included on Windows Vista doesn't work with your bank's private Web site, all you'll know is that Microsoft let you down.
The truth is, Windows XP's successes are a problem because Microsoft now has a user base that's gotten used to the company not shipping major OS upgrades that they can purchase and install. (Major Windows versions over the past 5 years, such as XP MCE, TPC, and XP Pro x64 have all typically only been sold with new PCs.) What's another year or two?
Microsoft's job, now, is to convince you that its previous Windows system, XP, is not good enough. I don't envy them that task. And I don't really have a stake in this argument either way. I'm sure Windows Vista will be a blockbuster release because of its many new features, cool new user interface, and enhanced security. And I'm sure that people who really care about computers will gravitate towards Vista like moths to a flame. It's hard to ignore something this good.
Paradoxically, Windows Vista is both revolutionary and evolutionary. While it includes modern OS features, such as a new hardware-based graphical user interface (GUI), Vista will also feel like familiar territory, for the most part, to anyone that's already familiar with Windows XP. And Mac advocates can claim, truthfully, that many of Vista's best features appeared first on Mac OS X, sometimes years ago.
More problematic, over the past five years, many of Windows Vista's best features have been jettisoned, and it's unclear whether they'll ever appear in future Windows versions. Other features, like Internet Explorer (IE) 7, the Avalon and WinFX programming interfaces, the RSS platform, and more have been back-ported to Windows XP and Windows Server 2003, watering down the uniqueness of the Vista platform.
Does any of this really matter to the typical PC user? Perhaps not. As someone who's been dissecting Windows Vista for several years now, the novelty has frankly worn off. So it would be a disservice for me to base my opinions of this system on my belief that it should have shipped two years ago. After all, to the average PC users out there in audience (i.e. most people), Windows Vista is something new. Under the hood, Vista is, in fact, quite different from its predecessors, despite the surface similarities. Indeed, it is to Microsoft's credit that hundreds of millions of Windows users will be able to upgrade or otherwise move to Windows Vista, install and run almost all of their existing applications, hook up and access almost all of their hardware peripherals, and access all of their critical data files and other documents, all without any understanding at all of the major changes that Microsoft has wrought. Microsoft once described Vista as the Windows platform for the next decade. I'm no longer sure this was hyperbole.
These are the things to keep in perspective when considering Windows Vista. It is a complex product, a big product. It's a major Windows update with lots of new functionality and oodles of new features. It's the first Windows version to provide developers with a major new programming model in a decade. It's got an unbelievably long list of extensibility points so that Microsoft and its partners can build off it for years to come. It is, as promised, the biggest new version of Windows since Windows 95. Chances are, if you're reading this site, you're going to upgrade to Vista sometime soon regardless of my opinion. As for the rest of the world, I suspect their next PC purchase will include Windows Vista as well. By this time next year, over 100 million people around the world will be using Windows Vista.
It's incredible, isn't it? The sheer size and scope of Windows Vista makes it difficult to review, to digest, and to understand. If you step back too far, it doesn't look very impressive at all: It's like XP with a spit-shine. But if you get too close, it's easy to get lost in the seemingly never-ending lists of new features. Yep, it's a major Windows version all right. And now it's complete. Let's dive in.
Reviewing Windows Vista
In this multi-part review of Windows Vista, I will attempt to provide you with the information you need to decide whether you want Windows Vista now, in the near future, or later. (Let's face facts: Not ever upgrading isn't really an option.) I'll explain the differences between the various product editions, discuss each of the major new features, and tell you which I think are valuable and which you can safely ignore. I'll discuss Vista's hardware and software compatibility prowess (or lack thereof) and explain why you may want to hold off on that x64 version you've been considering. And by the time I'm done--sometime in the days ahead, but well ahead of Vista's general availability--I hope I'll have communicated why this major new Windows version is so important and, ultimately, so desirable.
The review will be broken down into several parts, which I'll publish over time. This first part of the review is largely introductory material. In Part 2, I'll explain the different Vista product editions and provide you with the simple information you need to determine which version is for you. Part 3 covers the installation process, including interactive setup, upgrading from XP, and even corporate deployment. In Part 4, I'll highlight what I think of as the Vista experience, explaining what you get in the box, the overall look and feel of the new Vista UIs, and how its performance compares with that of previous Windows versions.
Part 5 of this review will focus on new Windows Vista features, including the advances Microsoft has made in digital media, networking and Internet, and security. In Part 6, I'll look at compatibility, both hardware and software, and on both 32-bit (x86) and 64-bit (x64) systems. Part 7 will discuss the dark side of Vista, the inconsistent and undesirable features that will leave you shaking your head. And finally, I'll wrap it up in Part 8 with information about availability and pricing and my conclusions.
A quick look back over the past five years
In mid-2001, my son Mark was three and my daughter hadn't even been born yet. We lived in a different, smaller, home, and the tragedies of 9/11 were still ahead of us. Today, over five years later, much has changed. My son is now over 8 years old and his soon-to-be-five-year-old sister Kelly is like a bossy buddy he can't quite shake. We live in a different house, and though it's supposed to be a better neighborhood, I'm haunted daily by the never-ending sounds of lawn machines, leaf-blowers, or snow removal equipment, depending on the time of year. Put simply, a lot has changed.
In the wider technology world, by mid-2001, Microsoft was getting ready to ship Windows XP and Apple had recently shipped the first version of Mac OS X, a product that was so woefully inadequate that even it's most ardent supporters ruefully referred to it as a public beta. Every year, it seemed, the Linux desktop was poised to take off. That, still, has never happened.
Apple and its supporters will tell you that Apple spent the past five years churning out major new Mac OS X versions while Microsoft fumbled around trying to finish Windows Vista. This is completely untrue. Though I use and respect Mac OS X, virtually every version Apple has shipped since 2001 has been a minor update, akin to a Windows 98 SE or Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2). Meanwhile, Microsoft has pushed an amazing variety of Windows versions out the door since 2001. Some highlights include Windows XP Embedded, Windows XP Media Center Edition (MCE), Windows XP MCE 2004, Windows XP MCE 2005, Windows XP Tablet PC Edition (TPC), Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005, and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition. It has also shipped major updates to its digital media software, including three major updates to Windows Media Player, a major IE release--IE 7--major new client-based security applications and services, including Windows Defender and Windows Live OneCare. And this is just a partial list. The point here is simple: Microsoft hasn't sat still, contrary to the FUD you read online.
So why did Vista take so long? Microsoft will tell you that Vista has really only been in active development since mid-2004, when it "reset" the original Longhorn project and restarted development on the Windows Server 2003 code base. I'd argue that this is a convenient misstatement of the facts: Windows Vista is Longhorn and Longhorn is Windows Vista. In short, Microsoft did take five years to bring Longhorn--sorry, Windows Vista--to market.
As it turns out, the reason why is simple. Microsoft screwed up, plain and simple. Each version of Windows is based on the version that came before it and because Windows Vista was envisioned as a kitchen sink release that would include every major new feature imaginable, it eventually teetered and fell under the weight of the technology Microsoft was heaping upon it. That Vista is now based on the Windows Server 2003 code based and not that of Windows XP is meaningless. When the project started, back in 2001, it was based on Windows XP.
After the reset, Microsoft scaled back the Vista feature-set dramatically and ensured that features were added in a more logical fashion. The two year development time that Microsoft refers to in this case is the most recent two years, the period of time during which Vista got back on track. This is a period of time that Microsoft should be justifiably proud of. The previous three years? Trust me, we'd all like to forget that.
But the problem with the five year gestation isn't that OS X and Linux have caught up and in some ways surpassed Windows, which of course they have in some respects. The problem isn't even that Microsoft promised us the world and then failed to deliver. No, the problem is that there's another OS out there that runs just fine on over 400 million computers around the world. That system is stable, secure, and gets the job done. It's Windows Vista's biggest competitor. To be fair, it's Windows Vista's only competitor. Maybe you've heard of it: It's called Windows XP.
Good enough: The problem with Windows XP
Windows XP is still good enough for most people, and that's got to be a bit alarming to Microsoft at the dawn of the Windows Vista era. Three years ago, when you talked about features like instant desktop search, integrated RSS capabilities, safe Web browsing, and security, Windows Vista was an easy sell. Today, all of those features and more are available on Windows XP (and in other OSes), so the argument for Windows Vista is somewhat diminished.
Too, Windows XP is 100 percent compatible with all of the PC hardware and software out there. While there is little doubt that Windows Vista will improve over time--for example, Microsoft tells me that many hardware drivers will ship between Vista's November 2006 RTM and its January 2007 consumer launch--for the short term at least, it's a distant second to XP in those categories that matter most to many consumers. If you're a gamer, you want to purchase a new game title and not have to worry whether it will run more slowly on Windows Vista, or not at all. And while that honking new PC is really pretty, if the version of IE 7 included on Windows Vista doesn't work with your bank's private Web site, all you'll know is that Microsoft let you down.
The truth is, Windows XP's successes are a problem because Microsoft now has a user base that's gotten used to the company not shipping major OS upgrades that they can purchase and install. (Major Windows versions over the past 5 years, such as XP MCE, TPC, and XP Pro x64 have all typically only been sold with new PCs.) What's another year or two?
Microsoft's job, now, is to convince you that its previous Windows system, XP, is not good enough. I don't envy them that task. And I don't really have a stake in this argument either way. I'm sure Windows Vista will be a blockbuster release because of its many new features, cool new user interface, and enhanced security. And I'm sure that people who really care about computers will gravitate towards Vista like moths to a flame. It's hard to ignore something this good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)