Microsoft Admits Vista Was a "Less Good Product"

[Osiris]

Microsoft Admits Vista Was a "Less Good Product"

And the award for "oddball statement of the day" goes to Microsoft's general manager of corporate strategy. Trust me, if there is anyone that knows a thing or two about saying oddball stuff, it's me.

"What people underestimate is the importance of good or bad products," said Songhurst. "And sometimes your products are good, sometimes the products are bad. And I think Vista was a less good product for Microsoft."
​

 

[KSoD]

How is a statement made by a single person who happens to work for the company, the company saying that the product was bad?

This is 1 guy. He does not speak for the company in regards of if it was a good or bad product. It was his opinion. It even is quoted as such.

I think vista was a less than good product. That is NOT Microsoft speaking. That is HIM.

Dont get me wrong on this. Vista is decent. I like it better than XP but less than Win7. But to claim that M$ said this when it clearly is 1 persons opinion is a joke to just get news.

 

[ehgit]

IMHO, I think Vista can be likened to Windows ME. It seemed to be a test run for a better end result: XP, but allowed M$ to continue to make money despite the "less than good" product. Good marketing strategy no matter how you look at it. People will always want the newest and latest thing whether or not it's the best. I agree Mak, Vista is decent, but it is a far cry from great. The user-friendliness of Vista falls short of XP, and your everyday users have a hard time with the bugs a glitches of a, basically, unfinished version of an OS, which leaves a bad taste in the mouth of inexperienced users. I understand what you are saying, don't get me wrong, but when the general manager of corporate strategy says something like he did, it carries some weight. After all, he does work for M$, so in some way he represents M$ and its views. I am, for sure, not one to say that the voice of one speaks for all, but it sure can speak for many, and I think that he spoke honestly about this product, it may cost him his job, but at least he was honest.

 

[patonb]

Actually... He didn't say the product was bad... He said it was bad for Microsoft.. I.E. it hurt Microsoft.

Whats Mac commercials going to do when it can't ***** on Vista? or the public finds out bout Mac insecurities...

 

[KSoD]

He may work for M$, he may be the manager of a division. But that means nothing. It is a single person. He does not speak for the CEO Steve Ballmer. Who does speak for the company. While Ballmer may give the company line that Vista was good or whatever, this is a single person who had no impact on Vista at all. Manager of Corporate Stragety is not a coder.

So yeah he was honest, i give him credit for that. But it is still a joke to say that a manger of Corporate Stragety is speaking for the whole company.

It is a single opinion. Just as my opinion is that it is decent and better than XP. Does that speak for all staff of Tech-Forums because i am a Admin? Not at all. But this is what they are doing. Taking a single persons opinion and applying it to the whole company.

It is nothing more than a spin tactic to get news and try to get some hits and debates going. It holds no truth to what the title says.

As far as what paton said, this is partially true. The truth is that Vista is hurt more by the rumors spread by those who dont know the truth. Those that believe those Mac commercials than actuall use the product for themselves. More people, even those on this site, read a rumor on another site and think it to be true and state it like it is a fact. That isnt always the case. Vista was hurt more by the online reputation than anything else. Vista was not bad. It was a step in the right direction.

Yes many things could have been done better. Resource usage is a most definate. But simply put Vista was decent. I know i have said it before that they need to do more with it, that releasing it when they did was a mistake cause there was still bugs. But it was more hurt by what was said on sites like this than anything else.

 

[Hefemeister]

Once sp2 came out Vista was a great OS. And it was not less good.

My question is if this guy is known is he still a M$ employee?

 

[ehgit]

He may work for M$, he may be the manager of a division. But that means nothing. It is a single person. He does not speak for the CEO Steve Ballmer. Who does speak for the company. While Ballmer may give the company line that Vista was good or whatever, this is a single person who had no impact on Vista at all. Manager of Corporate Stragety is not a coder.

So yeah he was honest, i give him credit for that. But it is still a joke to say that a manger of Corporate Stragety is speaking for the whole company.

It is a single opinion. Just as my opinion is that it is decent and better than XP. Does that speak for all staff of Tech-Forums because i am a Admin? Not at all. But this is what they are doing. Taking a single persons opinion and applying it to the whole company.

It is nothing more than a spin tactic to get news and try to get some hits and debates going. It holds no truth to what the title says.

As far as what paton said, this is partially true. The truth is that Vista is hurt more by the rumors spread by those who dont know the truth. Those that believe those Mac commercials than actuall use the product for themselves. More people, even those on this site, read a rumor on another site and think it to be true and state it like it is a fact. That isnt always the case. Vista was hurt more by the online reputation than anything else. Vista was not bad. It was a step in the right direction.

Yes many things could have been done better. Resource usage is a most definate. But simply put Vista was decent. I know i have said it before that they need to do more with it, that releasing it when they did was a mistake cause there was still bugs. But it was more hurt by what was said on sites like this than anything else.

Here is what I said: I understand what you are saying, don't get me wrong, but when the general manager of corporate strategy says something like he did, it carries some weight. After all, he does work for M$, so in some way he represents M$ and its views.

Of course when we find out if he still has a job will be a better barometer of M$'s views being the same.

As far as rumors hurting Vista, yeah, I'm sure the nasty ones affected the public's opinion, but more than that, I think, it was actually using Vista that hurt it's reputation the most. SP2 is great and it made a difference, but too little too late.

The point I was trying to make is that M$ releasing a less than complete OS, like ME, was good marketing in the fact that they knew people would buy it up like it was a Cabbage Patch Doll, regardless of it's flaws and would come back for more. Playing to the consumers need to have the newest "thing" is the way to make money.
So, kudos to M$ and their "less good product"!!

 

[Trotter]

I was against Vista, but finally tried it post SP1. It turned out to be pretty good, good enough that I never booted back into XP. Vista is not without its flaws... those things that some desk jockeys thought we needed to protect us from ourselves (like UAC), and moving a lot of stuff around from where it was in XP.

In ways Vista was "les good" than XP, but XP had six years to mature before Vista came out. Vista was released before it was really ready, and this hurt it. The price tag, along with the new hardware requirements, caused many to shy away from it. Apple jumped on the bandwagon and took the opportunity to kick it when it was down.

Now, with Seven, things look very different. Seven takes everything right about Vista (and there's a lot right about it), and couples that with a newer UI and streamlines the entire thing.

Vista was "less good" than XP in some ways, and is definitely "less good" than Seven, but it is still a good, if not great, OS. The dude quoted from MS basically decided to suck on his foot while trying to talk.

"What people underestimate is the importance of good or bad products. And sometimes your products are good, sometimes the products are bad. And I think Vista was a less good product for Microsoft."

He didn't say Vista was bad, but that it was less good, sort of like not quite hitting the A+ and having to settle for a B.

 

[ehgit]

I was against Vista, but finally tried it post SP1. It turned out to be pretty good, good enough that I never booted back into XP. Vista is not without its flaws... those things that some desk jockeys thought we needed to protect us from ourselves (like UAC), and moving a lot of stuff around from where it was in XP.

In ways Vista was "les good" than XP, but XP had six years to mature before Vista came out. Vista was released before it was really ready, and this hurt it. The price tag, along with the new hardware requirements, caused many to shy away from it. Apple jumped on the bandwagon and took the opportunity to kick it when it was down.

Now, with Seven, things look very different. Seven takes everything right about Vista (and there's a lot right about it), and couples that with a newer UI and streamlines the entire thing.

Vista was "less good" than XP in some ways, and is definitely "less good" than Seven, but it is still a good, if not great, OS. The dude quoted from MS basically decided to suck on his foot while trying to talk. He didn't say Vista was bad, but that it was less good, sort of like not quite hitting the A+ and having to settle for a B.

I've always felt that Vista was the ME equivalent in the sense that it was released too early. I predict the next OS that M$ produces, after Seven, will probably have the same "less good" reputation that ME and Vista experienced.

Bottom line: The best way to test an OS is to give it to the masses and let them (the consumer) figure out the bugs and downfalls. We (the consumers) are the best "testers", so we should all pat ourselves on the back for a job well done in refining Vista into the greatness that it's successor, Seven, will surely be hailed as.

 

[Baez]

Vista wasn't released to early. It was released too late. Microsoft waited so long that by the time it released, people were scared of the change. Everyone was too used to XP by then.