About | ACP | Buy | Forum | Industry Watch | Learning Curve | Search | Twitter | Xnews
Home » Learning Curve » Red Hat Diaries

CNET UK: V*STA Top Ten Suckiest All Time

Why didn't they improve what they already had? Clue: they did - this was it.


Buy It

Try It

CNET UK have published a list of the top ten suckiest technology products of all time. Redmond just make the cut at #10 with their abortive V*sta.

'Any operating system that provokes a campaign for its predecessor's reintroduction deserves to be classed as terrible technology', CNET write on their 'Crave' blog. 'Any operating system that quietly has a downgrade-to-previous-edition option introduced for PC makers deserves to be classed as terrible technology. Any operating system that takes six years of development but is instantly hated by hordes of PC professionals and enthusiasts deserves to be classed as terrible technology.'

And they're still not finished.

'Its incompatibility with hardware, its obsessive requirement of human interaction to clear security dialogue box warnings, and its abusive use of hated DRM, not to mention its general pointlessness as an upgrade, are just some examples of why this expensive operating system earns the final place in our terrible tech list.'

Ahem.

Several of the comments attached to this article imply that Microsoft chose the wrong path - that they should have improved XP rather than creating anew. But that's what Microsoft did if you take away the five years DRM research and all the dirty contracts signed with media companies - the real reason for V*sta.

They did try to improve XP and they did come out with an upgrade, an enhancement, an improvement.

That's what they released 30 January this year.

You cannot take an endemically flawed standalone 'operating system' and pretend it's going to work in the real world. Microsoft's big ace is the huge number of third party applications that work for their platform. These applications would break if Microsoft did the sensible thing and gutted the underpinnings in favour of a 'rock solid foundation'.

Redmond aren't geniuses but they're not stupid either. And they got caught in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong technology. And all the fools built on top of this house of cards. And now no one wants to abandon the house.

If you want security and you find XP isn't secure enough (and it's not even close) then you have to resort to an 'obsessive requirement of human interaction' because EVERYTHING is dangerous. With no inner barriers, no endemic security YOU HAVE NO CHOICE. They should have a security prompt just to turn on the bloody thing.

The ridiculousness of this situation is something that's been understood for a long time. And all that's really happened now is the punters have been finally given a tangible example even they can understand why this is so.

The logic might escape people not used to the comfort of a 'rock solid foundation' but it's basically been there all along.

All you Windows tossers: you wanted to stick with Microsoft, you wanted them to 'improve' their products, you were DESPERATE for decent security - and Microsoft listened to you.

You got what you asked for.

About | ACP | Buy | Forum | Industry Watch | Learning Curve | Search | Twitter | Xnews
Copyright © Rixstep. All rights reserved.