4 ms·

Azure probably will get credited to Ray Ozzie. Rest of them are from Gates era. There are some monumental fuck-ups that happened under his guard though - Vista,

by balakk 13y ago

Azure probably will get credited to Ray Ozzie. Rest of them are from Gates era. There are some monumental fuck-ups that happened under his guard though - Vista, Windows Phone are enough proof.

danieldk 13y ago
Vista Most hardware was not powerful enough for Vista when it was released. It's the pressed who killed it. Windows 7 received glamorous reviews. However, in hindsight, Vista and 7 are not all that different. Most of the changes that daily users would encounter are cosmetic. Windows Phone Microsofts primary problem was that it was late and (as one of the consequences) there are not that many Windows Phone apps. However, WP7 and WP8 were generally quite well-received by the media. Windows Phone is really a nice phone OS, what Microsoft f*cked up is the transition from WP7 to WP8.
- Pxtl 13y ago
  Vista was a catastrophic death march until it launched, though. It was pushed back year after year after year. The long gap between XP and Vista was not intentional.
  - smacktoward 13y ago
    Not only was Vista development pushed back, but the whole process was restarted two years in when it became clear that the original version was a disaster (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Windows_Vista#Mid-2004_to_Mid-2005:_Development_.22reset.22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Windows_Vista#Mi...).
- smacktoward 13y ago
  > Most hardware was not powerful enough for Vista when it was released. It's the pressed who killed it. But Microsoft gave them the gun by agreeing to the OEMs' demand to create a "Vista Capable" classification, for machines that were too underpowered to run Vista well (see http://www.crn.com/slide-shows/channel-programs/206905984/tracing-microsofts-vista-capable-debacle.htm http://www.crn.com/slide-shows/channel-programs/206905984/tr...). The OEMs didn't care about customer experience, they just wanted a "Vista!" sticker they could slap on as many machines as possible. MS had to know these machines would make Vista look bad; they should have resisted the demand. But they didn't, so tons of people bought machines they thought would run Vista acceptably, only to find out they did not. So they (understandably) thought Vista was just a dog that couldn't run well even on "Vista certified" hardware.
- eterm 13y ago
  Hardware wasn't powerful enough because Vista was terrible. At the time of Vista's launch I had a 2yr old PC running ubuntu with compiz with full 3D effects (but more importantly generally working window composition) while adverts on TV were trying to tell me Vista had "WOW!" while it ran poorly on new machines but actually had not much in the way of wow! like visuals. And even if many changes between vista and 7 were "cosmetic", that's how people interact with their PCs, and things like having different UI styles all over the place is a huge dealbreaker that puts people off using it. (See also: Windows 8).
- gregd 13y ago
  Frankly, I'm still bitter over Windows ME

by balakk 13y ago

Azure probably will get credited to Ray Ozzie. Rest of them are from Gates era. There are some monumental fuck-ups that happened under his guard though - Vista, Windows Phone are enough proof.

danieldk 13y ago

Vista Most hardware was not powerful enough for Vista when it was released. It's the pressed who killed it. Windows 7 received glamorous reviews. However, in hindsight, Vista and 7 are not all that different. Most of the changes that daily users would encounter are cosmetic. Windows Phone Microsofts primary problem was that it was late and (as one of the consequences) there are not that many Windows Phone apps. However, WP7 and WP8 were generally quite well-received by the media. Windows Phone is really a nice phone OS, what Microsoft f*cked up is the transition from WP7 to WP8.

Pxtl 13y ago
Vista was a catastrophic death march until it launched, though. It was pushed back year after year after year. The long gap between XP and Vista was not intentional.
- smacktoward 13y ago
  Not only was Vista development pushed back, but the whole process was restarted two years in when it became clear that the original version was a disaster (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Windows_Vista#Mid-2004_to_Mid-2005:_Development_.22reset.22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Windows_Vista#Mi...).
smacktoward 13y ago
> Most hardware was not powerful enough for Vista when it was released. It's the pressed who killed it. But Microsoft gave them the gun by agreeing to the OEMs' demand to create a "Vista Capable" classification, for machines that were too underpowered to run Vista well (see http://www.crn.com/slide-shows/channel-programs/206905984/tracing-microsofts-vista-capable-debacle.htm http://www.crn.com/slide-shows/channel-programs/206905984/tr...). The OEMs didn't care about customer experience, they just wanted a "Vista!" sticker they could slap on as many machines as possible. MS had to know these machines would make Vista look bad; they should have resisted the demand. But they didn't, so tons of people bought machines they thought would run Vista acceptably, only to find out they did not. So they (understandably) thought Vista was just a dog that couldn't run well even on "Vista certified" hardware.
eterm 13y ago
Hardware wasn't powerful enough because Vista was terrible. At the time of Vista's launch I had a 2yr old PC running ubuntu with compiz with full 3D effects (but more importantly generally working window composition) while adverts on TV were trying to tell me Vista had "WOW!" while it ran poorly on new machines but actually had not much in the way of wow! like visuals. And even if many changes between vista and 7 were "cosmetic", that's how people interact with their PCs, and things like having different UI styles all over the place is a huge dealbreaker that puts people off using it. (See also: Windows 8).
gregd 13y ago
Frankly, I'm still bitter over Windows ME