The Mojave Experiment: Bad Science, Bad Marketing

jaredjared College Station, TX
edited August 2008 in The Pub
The Mojave Experiment: Bad Science, Bad Marketing

Comments

  • QeldromaQeldroma Arid ZoneAh
    edited July 2008
    Not that bad of an article. Still ....

    ....Still, I shudder to think of what the backlash to Mojave is going to be. Someone is going to come up with a "BonJovi Experiment" and focus it to work the Vista suxorz saw. I wouldn't be surprised if Mac sponsors it and uses their "PC" and "Mac" guys to run it.

    I'd just wished we'd get out of the marketing way of addressing issues. There are people who spent good money & time on their OS, but the objective way of dealing with the problems may escape us. It doesn't matter what the real issue is- it's a matter of how you spin it. Marketing is in the business of creating "need", not addressing it. Unfortunately, it looks like some high tech is going to be more like a political mudslinging campaign where, at the end of the day, everyone has voted but nothing, really, has changed.
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm Madison, WI
    edited July 2008
    Nobody gives Apple this level of critique when they call OSX "the most advanced operating system in the world," or the iPhone "the most advanced smartphone in the world." These were actual banners at WWDC this year. But the instant MS says "Decide yourself," everybody goes apesh|t over it.
  • BuddyJBuddyJ Dept. of Propaganda OKC
    edited July 2008
    That's the difference between marketing talk and psuedo-science.
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm Madison, WI
    edited July 2008
    So it was a poor choice of words to call it an "experiment," but I don't think anybody is honestly in belief that this is science. I think in the videos they even state that it's a "social experiment." It's just a method to say "maybe you people that have never tried it for yourselves would like it if you gave it a shot."

    I should really stop letting these threads get to me.
  • ThraxThrax Professional Shill, Watch Slut, Mumble Hivemind Drone Austin, TX
    edited July 2008
    I think Apple's marketing and Microsoft's marketing are both bull****.

    Mojave is particularly irritating.
  • edited July 2008
    Setting the expectation for actual scientific evidence would kill marketing as we know it (yay?)

    I definitely agree with the following portion of the article though:
    Vista is known for people initially liking it, then after a while discovering it’s not working for them, and “downgrading” to XP. This study has told us exactly what we already knew: that, initially, people like Vista.

    Which is why I consider the whole Mojave experiment to be pretty worthless.
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm Madison, WI
    edited July 2008
    Only problem is, exactly that situation isn't UNIVERSAL, and everybody's acting like it is. The people that don't like Vista tell their friends there's NO WAY they'd like Vista either.

    Decide yourself.
  • QeldromaQeldroma Arid ZoneAh
    edited July 2008
    Snarkasm wrote:
    I should really stop letting these threads get to me.

    Actually, I hope you keep speaking out. It forces some people to rethink their positions and speak with more intelligence than presumptuous sarcasm. There IS a faction that simply follows the bulls of the herd without having any idea of why they're going that way.
    Snarkasm wrote:
    So it was a poor choice of words to call it an "experiment," but I don't think anybody is honestly in belief that this is science....

    Unfortunately, to emphasize my point, that's exactly what many are going to believe.
  • Your-Amish-DaddyYour-Amish-Daddy The heart of Texas
    edited July 2008
    There is science in Marketing.
  • ThraxThrax Professional Shill, Watch Slut, Mumble Hivemind Drone Austin, TX
    edited July 2008
    There is science in Marketing.

    But no marketing in science.
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska
    edited July 2008
    The people that don't like Vista tell their friends there's NO WAY they'd like Vista either.

    Decide yourself.
    I would really enjoy enjoy experimenting with Vista. Problem is, so many people like me are ambivalent about Vista because XP works so well for us. Vista good? Don't know. Vista bad? Don't know. But I'm not going to plunk down $200 just to see for myself. An authorized MS trial copy would be splendid. I like it? I pay and keep it. (Yes, I am honest with my software.) I don't like it? No problem. I just format the hard drive and clone it back to it's original XP configuration.

    That is the root problem of migration from XP to Vista - most long-time XP users are satisfied enough with XP that they see no reason to pay money just to 'try' something else.

    All my computer hardware (five computers) works perfectly.
    I have software that works well for just about anything I need.
    I can upgrade hardware whenever I want.
    My systems do NOT get malware of any kind (free XP-compatible security software, always easily updated)
    My computers are fast and do just about anything I require of them.

    Am I against Vista? Certainly not. But I see no incentive for spending money at this time.

    I am sure Microsoft understands all this quite well. But you certainly wouldn't expect them to market Vista with the message, "switch to Vista because our XP is so stinking awful!" They keep touting the advantages of Vista, but we happy XP users just yawn at the marketing.
  • Your-Amish-DaddyYour-Amish-Daddy The heart of Texas
    edited July 2008
    I've been using Vista for a month. I am still on the fence about it.

    Sure it's sluggish, but if something dies...I hit the panic keys and the system HALTS and gives me my dammed task manager. I hated that about XP not forcing the system to halt, then give me my task manager. I love that.

    I hate how of a biscuit vista is when it comes to everything else though. I want to share some files on my network? No other computer can even see my machine. I have YET to solve that.

    Mixed feelings. It offers one branch of stability that I need, the halting of the system to get me my task manager, but it whomps with everything else.
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm Madison, WI
    edited July 2008
    Network and Sharing Center not helping you out, YAD? I share files TO my Vista box, not from it, so I suppose I don't have any real advice for you there.

    And Leo, I have absolutely no qualms with your reasoning, nor should anybody.
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska
    edited July 2008
    So the question is: Why doesn't Microsoft offer a Vista OS trialware? Too easy to crack and keep using without purchase? There have got to be many, many potential customers like me who might end up making a purchase if they had a risk free, in-depth introduction.
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm Madison, WI
    edited July 2008
    There IS a trial. Take any disc and install it - you get to use it for 30 days and it goes into WGA mode or whatever.

    Any disc will give you a trial.
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska
    edited July 2008
    Ohhh! So it's like XP in that you have x days to activate it? Will it perform updates without activation?
  • Your-Amish-DaddyYour-Amish-Daddy The heart of Texas
    edited July 2008
    Yes. Both critical and non-critical.
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm Madison, WI
    edited July 2008
    Heh. Furthermore, if that's what XP does, why did you think Vista would be any different?
  • airbornflghtairbornflght Houston, TX
    edited July 2008
    I like vista, but it's too heavy. My Q6600 and 4gb of ram runs it flawlessly. But my friends more modest computer was horribly slow. Sow we put xp on it. I really like the OS, but I wouldn't be using it if I didn't have as fast as computer or if I had to pay for it (University download)
  • QeldromaQeldroma Arid ZoneAh
    edited July 2008
    If you do try out Vista, don't finish without trying a game that does both DX9 and DX10. The difference is remarkable.
  • edited July 2008
    Qeldroma wrote:
    If you do try out Vista, don't finish without trying a game that does both DX9 and DX10. The difference is remarkable.

    What games exactly are you referring to? I noticed no distinct differences with DX10 except for games where "DX10 Mode" actually just unlocks higher detail settings.
  • QeldromaQeldroma Arid ZoneAh
    edited July 2008
    Crysis was my test game- HD3870. I noticed a distinct improvement in the look and feel of the game.
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska
    edited July 2008
    No, I wouldn't give gaming any time as that is not in my realm of interest. My concerns would be software and hardware compatibility and productivity features. And sure, the aesthetics also hold some value for me.
  • edited July 2008
    Qeldroma wrote:
    Crysis was my test game- HD3870. I noticed a distinct improvement in the look and feel of the game.

    It's not just you, Crysis definitely looks better running under DX10. However, it's primarily because Crysis is a perfect example of where DX10 is made to look better than it really is by only allowing the highest detail settings for those running DX10/Vista. A few seconds in the config file and you have "DX10" Crysis under XP.
  • ThraxThrax Professional Shill, Watch Slut, Mumble Hivemind Drone Austin, TX
    edited August 2008
    The elements of DX10.0, the required ones, are identical to XP. DX10 could be written for XP today and it would work fine.
  • QeldromaQeldroma Arid ZoneAh
    edited August 2008
    Leonardo wrote:
    No, I wouldn't give gaming any time as that is not in my realm of interest. My concerns would be software and hardware compatibility and productivity features. And sure, the aesthetics also hold some value for me.

    Obviously, I'm not a big gamer either (simply put- they take up too much time) and my thought was simply to encourage you to see one of the remarkable advantages Vista has (had?) to offer. Still, the destktop presentation with Aero is also attractive and there is, at least I think, some improved intuitive feel to it. Yes, it's all subjective. However....

    I'll try it when I get a chance, Mason- thanks. I had no idea. Looks like a deal breaker for a lot of gamers if similar hacks can be applied to all/many titles.
  • MrTRiotMrTRiot Living in the North
    edited August 2008
    *throws in his 2 cents*

    Being an experienced Vista user there are actually only a few major flaws that are REALLY need to be addressed...

    1) There's a major difference in how virutal memory is used. Basically, your physical RAM is always going to get drained before the "virutal memory". Slowing down your computer after long activity [Any full screen "game" for a couple hours demands a 30 sec power off....]

    and...

    2) Despite always having disabled "Windows Defender" it always runs in the background. Has since day one. Just wasting resources.....

    *Shrugs*

    It could be alot worse to be honest......
  • edited August 2008
    Mr TRiot wrote:
    *throws in his 2 cents*

    Being an experienced Vista user there are actually only a few major flaws that are REALLY need to be addressed...

    1) There's a major difference in how virutal memory is used. Basically, your physical RAM is always going to get drained before the "virutal memory". Slowing down your computer after long activity [Any full screen "game" for a couple hours demands a 30 sec power off....]

    and...

    2) Despite always having disabled "Windows Defender" it always runs in the background. Has since day one. Just wasting resources.....

    *Shrugs*

    It could be alot worse to be honest......

    I'm not sure why using RAM instead of VM would be a bad thing so long as you have enough RAM. The memory management including SuperFetch is probably my favorite part of Vista.

    After disabling the Windows Defender services I never had a problem with it running in the background.

    I used and loved Vista on my main rig for a little over 8 months, but in the end I got frustrated and killed it. 3D performance was lacking, file transfers were slow (even post SP1), and there were just enough tiny little irritations to drive me to XP x64 (which is excellent).

    :cheers:
  • MrTRiotMrTRiot Living in the North
    edited August 2008
    mas0n wrote:
    I'm not sure why using RAM instead of VM would be a bad thing so long as you have enough RAM. The memory management including SuperFetch is probably my favorite part of Vista.

    I was a huge fan of my VM with XP. Basically I had about 1 gig of physical and 5 gigs of VM, would barely run without any VM but once added it would increase performace 10 fold.

    The issue I'm having with Vista (I've had it just over a year) is that there is almost NO difference once VM is pushed passed 2 gigs. I only had Vista about a few months before I realized that more physical RAM was needed [I doubled my RAM, 2 gigs of DDR 2 now]...

    Even after that upgrading, XP still ran faster...

    Vista should be renamed the OS that "Forces you to spend money on stuff you wouldn't of needed without Vista"

    p.s. I'm on 32 bit Vista Home Basic btw
  • GrayFoxGrayFox /dev/urandom
    edited August 2008
    Everyone loves vista for the first few weeks.

    Then those who don't like it expect a free downgrade to xp.


    Ive played with the trial, it ran well but im not migrating from xp to vista. Too many incomparability's with older software that I occasionally use and its driver support still isn't perfect.

    However I will admit media center and media center extender are very nice... but theres better alternatives for xp and vista that are free (Such as XBMC)


    The only thing about vista I can say I really liked was UAC... but smart user's shouldn't need it anyways. (UAC is a easier to use then RunAs)
Sign In or Register to comment.