ms stock drops 2%

it really is funny. there's a NY times article that says Vista's debut wasn't "Wow" (quoting the marketing) just because the amount of people lining up didnt match the level of people lining up for Windows 95. I don't know why people expected this. It isn't news that it didn't happen. The article mentions that this doesn't mean that Vista won't be a success. But they report it in a way that sounds negative just so it can be a story.

but you have to give it to Microsoft for creating such an overreaching slogan that it can be used against them in the press, and marketing it in a way that confuses and frustrates people.

Hmm, its up ~4% (after the drop) in the past 3 months.  25% in the past 6 months.

Google: -2.98%
Apple: -.96%

I guess they didn't have the "wow" either.

The biggest "Wow!"s will come with the applications developed for the platform. At least the wows people will report on.

In a way i think that is a great thing. MSFT has given the MSFT development world an excellent platform for the future (one that should become far better over time). Devs now have some great tools to really push the ideas of what applications should feel like and to redefine "connected" for the average user.

Personally i never expected more than the true geeks to be excited (i know i was).... average users won't find too many reasons yet to make the jump. In the coming months and years there will be far more compelling reasons as new applications come to the forefront making people finally go "Ohh Wow!!"

just my .02

Need to remember in win95 timeframe, we still got in the car and went to the store.  Now, everyone gets online and hits "Order" button.

MS should not have messed with the Windows UI. They should have maintained the one in XP so to make people feel at home with the new system. Most people care about the UI and not how the OS works.

Oh well, perhaps Vienna will be better.

SecretSoftware wrote:

MS should not have messed with the Windows UI. They should have maintained the one in XP so to make people feel at home with the new system. Most people care about the UI and not how the OS works.

Oh well, perhaps Vienna will be better.

But if they didn't change the UI, there wouldn't be a new system to feel at home with...  you'd have the under-the-hood improvements, but those aren't enough to sell operating systems.

SecretSoftware wrote:

MS should not have messed with the Windows UI. They should have maintained the one in XP so to make people feel at home with the new system. Most people care about the UI and not how the OS works.

Oh well, perhaps Vienna will be better.

People said the exact same thing from 95 to 98 to XP to Vista.  It will happen again.  Its funny, people ask for change and when they get it, they complain about change.  I think a lot of people just like to compain.

staceyw wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:MS should not have messed with the Windows UI. They should have maintained the one in XP so to make people feel at home with the new system. Most people care about the UI and not how the OS works. Oh well, perhaps Vienna will be better.

People said the exact same thing from 95 to 98 to XP to Vista.  It will happen again.  Its funny, people ask for change and when they get it, they complain about change.  I think a lot of people just like to compain.

What was done to 98 >> XP , was microsurgery, what happened from XP >> Vista is a face change.

SecretSoftware wrote:

What was done to 98 >> XP , was microsurgery, what happened from XP >> Vista is a face change.

If you're talking about just the UI, I suppose you could take that view. Of course, the internals are completely different. But honestly, what is there to really like about the XP interface? If anything, it reminded me of the color scheme used for Fisher-Price toys. At least the greys, blacks, and green-blue looks more professional in Vista.

One also has to remember that Windows 95 was really the clean-break from the old 16-bit Windows 3.1 platform and it was a fairly radical change across the board. Now, if Microsoft had sat on their hands and didn't release the SP2 security changes, IE7 or 64-bit builds for XP, then people would be talking about how amazingly better Vista was because of the contrast between the two platforms.
 
As it is, Vista looks to be more of an incremental change. But that's only really because Microsoft has been firehosing users with free updates to XP that incorporates a lot of the stuff you find in Vista (including WinFX and so on). Because they're so "evil" and whatnot, you know.

Wow a whole 2%, somebody call Ballmer!!!

Guess this all changes the Bill G. retirement plan. :O:P

mstefan wrote:


One also has to remember that Windows 95 was really the clean-break from the old 16-bit Windows 3.1 platform and it was a fairly radical change across the board. Now, if Microsoft had sat on their hands and didn't release the SP2 security changes, IE7 or 64-bit builds for XP, then people would be talking about how amazingly better Vista was because of the contrast between the two platforms.

And they'd be complaining about how Microsoft is screwing the XP users over by putting all the improvements in the new OS and trying to get them to buy those.

But they didn't. Because, as you said, they're so "evil" and whatnot.