Windows Vista: The pudding sucks
I recently read an article that Wired did about how a Microsoft security expert claims that Vista has fewer security flaws that XP:
“Based on the number of known vulnerabilities announced and the number of patches released for the desktop OS in the past year, Vista gets higher ratings than Windows XP, Mac OS X 10.4, Red Hat Enterprise Linux or Ubuntu 6.06.”
This claim is so subjective. You can throw up all the charts and graphs you want and it won’t prove a thing. Michael Calore of Wired seems to agree:
“This doesn’t mean that Vista is inherently more secure than these other OSes. All the study proves is that Vista had a better security track record than the other OSes over their first year of release.”
Microsoft spent five years developing Vista. You’d think it would be more secure that XP. So why would that be a surprise? But to claim that it’s more secure than the competition? How would you even measure something like that?
But I digress. Pundits of Vista (myself included) won’t argue that Vista is more secure (it is!) because that’s not the point. The real problem with Vista is that after five years of development, Microsoft delivered an operating system that offered no compelling new features over Windows XP. Not only that but there were a slew of compatibility issues with existing hardware and software, both new and old.
The point is that security is only one part of the equation. People do want a more secure environment on their computers. No one can deny that. But people also want a more productive environment on their computers. Performance gains with Vista are atrocious! As one blogger pointed out the combination of “Vista, Office, and Outlook 2007 is a nightmare“. Why would any business gamble on a loss of perfomance on the very applications they rely on day in and day out? A loss of performance is a loss in productivity, it’s as simple as that.
Doesn’t help either that Microsoft plans to stop selling OEM licenses at the end of June, 2008. Windows Vista isn’t even a year old (it was released on January 30th, 2007) and Microsoft is telling business customers that they have to purchase Vista with new computers only a year and a half after its debut? A lot of companies waited at least two years to start using XP and, even then, most companies didn’t actually widely adopt XP till SP2 came out. Why does Microsoft thing Vista is any different? June is just too soon. Microsoft would do well to give business customers the choice and let it ride for at least another year or so.
By nature, people tend to accept the default regardless of what problems exist. But people don’t have to accept it. Individuals and businesses alike need to learn that the default isn’t always the best. You don’t have to put up with the default choice. There are other choices. In this case the choice is simple: Either force Microsoft to give you the choice and make a better product…or switch to the competition. I have a stinking suspicion that a lot of people will be switching to the competition.
You’ve heard the phrase “The proof is in the pudding”, right? Well…I’m not sure if the pudding in Windows Vista is all that good. It’s the equivalent of ordering Tapioca pudding for dessert in a fine restaurant and getting served a Snack Pack. How would you react if that happened to you? That’s what I thought.
Make mine a Mac! ![]()
