What Do you Think of the Mojave Experiment?

[KristineS]

I've seen this ad in a couple of places online lately. Basically it is Microsoft saying that people love Windows Vista when they don't know it's Windows Vista. This is the website (http://www.mojaveexperiment.com/)for the promotion.

Personally, I think this is a terrible idea. First, the company is basically admitting that their software has a reputation problem. Second, they're pretty much admitting that their original marketing tactics didn't work. I don't know if I would have done something like this. I'm wondering what the rest of you think about it.

[cbscreative]

Let's put it this way, I have Vista mostly out of necessity. While I like some things about it, I mostly don't like it much. I made sure I had lots of resources (new laptop), about 2 or 3+ times what is required, and I still find it is slow. I stand by my assessment that Vista is a pig. It's eye candy for sure, lot's of bells and whistles, but I prefer performance. My XP Pro desktop rocks, and it has less resources.

As for this ad campaign, it seems like damage control to me.

For the record, the laptop has:
3 GB RAM
384 MB dedicated video RAM
1.83 GHz Dual Core processor

I disabled some of the things I didn't want sucking resources, and it's still slow.

[orion_joel]

I have to date had very little exposure to Vista, however i am sure i will have more in the future.

Despite what many have found with most Windows launches, i have been happy with the results of most of my upgrades, however i have generally not been upgradign until usually the Service pack 2 time on most versions. This was not really something that was ever planned that way but more so a case of when i upgraded systems and money allowed for the software upgrade (i always built my own computers).

For vista i am sure i will upgrade in the next few months when i buy a new laptop, however it has nothing to do with any marketing or reputation or anything it is just purely the fact it is what will be pre installed on the laptop. This is where Microsoft truly miss the point i think, their marketing has nothing to do with what people buy, if they stopped all marketing tomorrow for windows, people would still buy it because it is what is preinstalled on computers. Also what is available in retail packaging.

[KristineS]

I just found the whole marketing campaign interesting because Microsoft seemed to be implying that the problems in the software were maining caused by perception. You can't create that perception if there weren't originally problems. Their solution is not to make the software better, they just change the name.

[Paul Elliott]

<SET SOAPBOX MODE = ON>


I just found the whole marketing campaign interesting because Microsoft seemed to be implying that the problems in the software were maining caused by perception. You can't create that perception if there weren't originally problems. Their solution is not to make the software better, they just change the name.

You're exactly correct, Kristine. I go all the way back to the IBM PC and PC Jr./DOS days. DOS was at best a mediocre OS, but with skillful tactics Bill Gates, et al., wedged it firmly into the marketplace.

The Boca Raton Unit (to develop the PC) was established by IBM as a separate, wholly-owned subsidiary and given carte blanche to do whatever it took to seize the personal computer industry.

The BRU people figured out that the other pc manufacturers--Tandy/Radio Shack, Apple, and Commodore--were butting heads by forcing SW developers to buy their Development Packages (translators/compilers) for their chip architecture which gave a limited number of SW licenses to the developer (usually worked out to somewhere ~$1/ea. copy--1975 dollars).

So, the BRU people came out with the PC chip and published the architecture throughout the world recognizing that by kicking the doors off the chip architecture every budding SW developer in the world would be working in garages and basements the world over developing to the PC. That way the developers wouldn't have to purchase the Developer's Packages for each type of desktop and OS.

Guess what? It worked! . . . And we got Lotus 123 and other programs that were blockbusters.

Then, IBM tried to put their monopolistic fence around things again and killed the PC . . . along with most of their other divisions.

I believed that Unix was a superior OS, but AT&T (original developer and owner) fumbled the ball time and time again. Linux is probably still superior in many ways though I've not used it in about 10 years. By the time its handlers let go of it, DOS/Win had the momentum. Of course, due to its very powerful and robust nature, Linux was more difficult to develop SW for initially (until development platforms were designed, I'm told).

MS then proceeded to muscle all the hardware manufacturers to install Windows over any other OS forcing their inferior OS on the average consumer.

They still have a mediocre OS which they have, by superb market machinations, continued to support. Rather than spend their bucks on serving their customers and getting the bugs out of each OS version, they resort to legal maneuvering and appeal to Congress and the regulators to thwart their competitors, e.g., Netscape.

Of course, the MS failings have made for a lot of income for others who write about the problems and fixes, write SW that fixes them, and work on the HW that has crashed.

Both the behavior of IBM and MS are case studies in how large corporations try to manage their brands by exercising their monopolistic and political power rather than improving/debugging their products and helping their customers.

Instead they keep forcing additional OSs on us and ceasing the support of older versions all the while seeing that legacy SW that we all like ceases to work without the newer versions they have charged the developers a fee.

So the wheel continues to turn.

In my view, the sun is now rising again on Apple and its OS offering it the opportunity to gain in the ascendency, IF it has the sense to open its architecture and reduce its pricing, the mistakes it made 30+ years ago--something I am reluctant to believe will happen.

No, it isn't all the fault of the media--sounds like the whining liberal politicians, doesn't it--it is a reputation MS has diligently earned over the generations with multiple SW products. Don't let them tell you otherwise. :mad:

<SET SOAPBOX MODE = OFF>

Paul <drawing deep breath>

[KristineS]

That's some interesting history Paul, and I think what you're saying is true. I think it has made a lot of companies lazy. My hope is that people will find new and better ways to do things and challenge these large companies. Maybe then they'll be inspired to actually make their products work right, rather than try to convince us that it's our faulty perception, not their faulty product, that is the problem.

[Paul Elliott]

My hope is that people will find new and better ways to do things and challenge these large companies. Maybe then they'll be inspired to actually make their products work right, rather than try to convince us that it's our faulty perception, not their faulty product, that is the problem.

Kristine, color me cynical. Large companies find it easier to spin the perception of the product than to fix it. They will simply stiff-arm the competition and drag them into court rather than try to out-compete them.

If you don't believe that, read Jim Collin's book, Good to Great. Of about 1,500 successful companies studied, he and his students only found about 12 that qualified as really doing the job well in a sustainable fashion rather than growing as the cult of a particular personality.

Paul

[cbscreative]

Interesting history lesson, Paul. I have not studied that far back in such great detail. As I understand it though, MS made at least one good move in attempting to do something that no one else was doing. Computers were intended for computer geeks and required quite a learning curve. MS sought to make a product more user friendly with Windows. Many of their problems came from making it both user friendly and stable. Windows XP finally came as close as they ever came, and then Vista took them back down again.

I have noticed their "disposable" marketing approach. Although it's good for business (sort of) and good for them, it's not nice. They do have a nasty habit of always pushing the new standard and forcing us to use it by dropping support fro the older stuff. Some of the "progress" is good, but all too much of it is just a means of extracting money.

Here's a thought. Imagine all the large companies using these products, then imagine the cost of upgrading all the time. The cost of doing business rises, and we're all paying more for everything. If you or your kids are going to school, the costs for the technology alone is staggering. When I look at the new MS Office suite, I can't help but ask, "How many bells and whistles do you need for a word processing program, and why should it have to suck so many resources just to type letters and create spreadsheets?"

Some of these advances may be needed, but I suspect most of it is motivated strictly by profit and very little else.

[Paul Elliott]

Interesting history lesson, Paul. I have not studied that far back in such great detail.

It helps to have lived through it.;)


As I understand it though, MS made at least one good move in attempting to do something that no one else was doing. Computers were intended for computer geeks and required quite a learning curve. MS sought to make a product more user friendly with Windows. Many of their problems came from making it both user friendly and stable. Windows XP finally came as close as they ever came, and then Vista took them back down again.

I don't think their motives were entirely motivated by either altruism or a desire to make a customer friendly platform.

How did Apple manage to do a so much better job of that with less investment?

The MS saying in the late 70s and 80s reportedly was "Windows isn't done 'til DOS won't run." They appeared to wish to finally shut out all the free/inexpensive DOS programers. They didn't want to extend to the OS the mistakes IBM made with the hardware.


Here's a thought. Imagine all the large companies using these products, then imagine the cost of upgrading all the time. The cost of doing business rises, and we're all paying more for everything. If you or your kids are going to school, the costs for the technology alone is staggering. When I look at the new MS Office suite, I can't help but ask, "How many bells and whistles do you need for a word processing program, and why should it have to suck so many resources just to type letters and create spreadsheets?"

Of course, the SW has to be so integrated into the OS that you really can't extract the 2. Remember the whole browser issue when MS tried to shut out Netscape. MS insisted IE couldn't be removed/fully disabled from the OS to allow NS to run. That was by design. And, as it turned out, they really could make the OS compatible with NS without any degradation. :rolleyes:


Some of these advances may be needed, but I suspect most of it is motivated strictly by profit and very little else.

I suspect MS's goal is to integrate all the Office features (fully robust) into the OS along with a lot of other things into future OS releases so they don't have to sell and support everything separately.

Paul

[cbscreative]

I'm guessing your dates of the late 70's and early 80's was either technically referring to something else, or you meant to say 80's and 90's. Windows came into the picture at that time and DOS wasn't born until 1981. In the 70's, MS was still just being formed and was a nobody until IBM collaborated with them to develop the PC.

I still love the classic statement made by Bill Gates that went something to the effect that no one will ever need more than 64k for computing. I'm continually amazed at how they stretched DOS so far beyond its limits to keep it going for 20 years (Windows ME was the final insult to still be built on top of DOS).

[Paul Elliott]

You're right, Steve. I was muddling with the head-to-head of the Big 3 at that time forgetting that IBM actually broke it open in 1981.

Thank you for refocusing me.

Paul

[cbscreative]

No problem. Although I was "there" at that time, I could have cared less about the computing world at the time. I find it interesting now, but wanted to verify what you were referring to.

[Marcomguy]

I didn't think much of the promotion. So what if people like your product when they don't know it's your product? This kind of research is not actionable, unless they're planning to sell Vista under another brand name. Or in a brown paper bag.

That site pushed another one of my buttons. I find white text on a black background hard to read. So much so, I usually navigate away from such a site, unless it has some content that I have to read.

Black backgrounds look cool, and they make images pop. But they're lousy for text.

Back to the original question. I remember reading a story in the NY Times about how Microsoft knew about Vista's problems while it was in development. Partner companies like Dell told MS about Vista's issues, too. MS went ahead with the launch anyway, and the rest, as they say, is history.