Microsoft tricks people into liking Vista

By on July 25, 2008, 1:39 PM
Microsoft has gone on the offensive as it attempts to prove that Vista's tarnished image is due to poor perceptions created by the media, from Apple’s “I’m a Mac, I’m a PC” ads to tech journalists fishing for cheap traffic by bashing the OS simply because it’s Microsoft’s. To prove its point, the software giant rounded up a bunch of XP users who had a negative perception of Vista and asked for their opinions.

Users were asked to explain their dislike for Vista, and then were showed a “new” operating system code-named Mojave – all while being videotaped. Feedback was quite positive, with over 90 percent saying they were impressed with what they saw and one guy even exclaiming “oh wow” – a phrase that Microsoft has been hoping to get out of users mouths for months. Microsoft then revealed to the group that Mojave is actually Windows Vista how it is available today.

Of course, the test was probably conducted in a controlled environment and lacked vital elements of the whole Vista experience – such as installing, upgrading, hooking up hardware, and so on. In any case, the company hasn't figured out how it will use this to market the OS, but it’s a step forward in its quest to fight Vista ‘myths’.

User Comments: 20

Got something to say? Post a comment
nz_skater said:
I have to feel sorry for MS a bit around this. It did get bashed by everyone; I know so many people that 'hate Vista' but have never used it, installed it or even read anything about it. Is amazing how fickle we can all be at times.
thejedislayer said:
I find it amusing that someone wouldn't immediately notice that a lot of features seemed oddly the same.
therickster90 said:
I agree with the first post. A lot of people don't like it just because it's windows, and it's "cool" to not like microsoft. But I tried it and was relatively impressed (not on my comp, so I don't still use it, but I did extensively). Obviously it has problems, but that goes for all operating systems. Even linux *gasp*.
fullmetalvegan said:
Hahaha, that test group result cracks me up. I like Vista too, find it one step above XP - it's definetly better than XP, in terms of visual and stability.The one thing I hate atm, is ATi drivers not working on Vista properly, but that's just ATi - their drivers are often crap.
windmill007 said:
So what.. They didn't round up anyone who tried vista and didn't like it. They only rounded up people who thought they hated it but never seen or tried it. Would of been funny if they would of threw them on XP machines. I think they would of jumped up and down with excitement then. A little more than a wow. I'm glad that the vista perception is hated because I'm one of those who tried and used vista and still don't like it. Not because its cool not to like Microsoft just because its annoying. Plus its slow compared to XP on anything but a newer machine with 2GB plus ram. I also think its funny that people think vista is somehow more stable than XP. Most people never have blue screens or any problems on XP. The only people who do have other problems and vista is just masking your problems.LOL[Edited by windmill007 on 2008-07-26 10:05:39]
aolish said:
Hey I'm one of those ppl that never tried vista either. However I'm guessing most ppl that don't like vista is its because of its bloat factor....... so i'm guessing its a total myth that Vista needs 2-4 gigs of ram to perform optimally? That ridiculous imo. Its just poor writing if you ask me. Thats definetely not a myth. Yes its true XP had the same problem but no where near as bad as Vista. 98-XP in terms of hardare wasn't that big of a jump. Heck I have a machine with 256mb of ram hooked up to XP and it works just fine. Yes its a bit slow, and you have to ease up on the application usage, but its fine for casual web surfing and checking email. On 512mb (just adding another 256mb) XP runs so smooth! A huge difference. I've used XP with 512MB for a long time with no problems.Now all of a sudden WALLA!!!! A person needs 2GB of ram for vista to run great and 4GB of ram if your a heavy gamer. Whats with that huge massive jump? Where's are the super speeds that M$ have been saying about DX10 games? The games perform either the same or SLOWER! lol... What are the new things in Vista that warrants me going online and shelling out a couple of hundred $$$ (depending on which one you get, can we say ultimate?) that only requires you to upgrade your pc and spend even MORE money just to run an OS, let alone a game that ran the same on XP. Can anyone please clarify? With all this being said, don't get me wrong, I would LIKE to get Vista! It certainly looks "pretty" but obviously I can't go by that since performance is so much more important. In addition all the exclusive game titles (Halo) and making DX10 only for Vista to try and make XP users upgrade to vista doesn't help either. [Edited by aolish on 2008-07-26 10:56:29][Edited by aolish on 2008-07-26 10:59:44]
fullmetalvegan said:
@ aolish: You probably should have 2GB of RAM for Windows Vista, and 1GB of RAM for XP. But that's hardly an issue, 2GB of ram is like $50 AU... that's not even expensive. =P I'm a heavy gamer and games ran fine on 2GB of ram, you don't need 4GB. How ever I prefer to have 4GB because I am also an overclocking heavy gamer, whom sets all my games to ultra high, full AA, etc, and that requires 4GB of RAM. That's not Vista being slow, that's just me pushing games to the limit, any slowness would occur on XP as well, if it even ran it without crashing. I also prefer to be able to compress a movie in the background and play games at the same time, which I pull off perfectly on Vista / 4GB as well. =P So not many people actually do need over 2GB, it's just extensive use like I do.You can't consider needing more RAM for Vista a negative thing anyway, be realistic, technology moves on. Their not going to compensate for having to run on 512MB of RAM anymore than they are going to code a OS to run on a 486 when we're up to Dual and Quad Cores. It's called progression, and more advanced technology requires more from hardware. You can't even buy a pre-build PC such as from Dell with any less than 1GB of RAM here in my country anyway, so I doubt it's much different elsewhere. And with the cost of RAM being $50 for 2GB, I don't see where you stand to complain about that. It costs less than a months fee of most internet or cable tv bills, and it'll last more than a month.@windmill007: "I also think its funny that people think vista is somehow more stable than XP. Most people never have blue screens or any problems on XP." - That's a stupid call to make, I had numerous problems on XP, and so have many others. If you claim to have never had blue screens, or know anyone that does on XP, then you all must have the Windows XP Miracle Version, cause heaps of people did. Thus why it's up to SP3. My XP barely even functioned properly, especially with games, until SP2 came out, that's horrible. Vista runs perfect on SP1 so that's already beaten XP on stability.If you're doing anything on your XP PC beyond reading your e-mail, then you're inevitibly going to run into crashes on XP, and you're lying if you reckon you don't - plus refer to you probably having the rare Miracle edition. An application would crash rather often on XP and I'd lose my taskbar when it happened and have to reboot. Number of times that's occured on Vista: 0.[Edited by fullmetalvegan on 2008-07-26 14:08:07]
aolish said:
Actually I was more complaining about the jump between XP-Vista was outrageous then it was on 98-XP. You need four times the ram on Vista to make it run like it was on XP thats on 512mb. A Vista machine that has 1GB of ram will function like an XP machine that only has 256mb. But in the end you need 4-8x the ram to make it run decent.About winmill and your comments on crashing on Vista/XP. You guys can't really compare. You can't possibility say Vista or XP is dope because you guys didn't exp any crashes. Your exp doesn't apply to everyone elses. One persons vista/XP or any other OS exp will not apply to every single person on the planet. You can have a horrible exp with any OS while others will have a fantastic exp. There are to many tens of thousands of different hardware configurations. Not to mention all the millions of different software configurations out there. So unless you actually own every single pc on the planet along with all the different combinations of hardware and softwares onto it nobody can really say which OS is more stable then the other. Why am I even saying this? You guys should know this already.. this is a TECH site! lol
howzz1854 said:
i think the additional ram requirement rant is relatively subjective. to me personally when i upgraded from 98 to XP, 512MB was plentiful for 98, but on the XP was crawling. it wasn't until i doubled it to 1Gig XP started to take off. then years of running XP on 2gig was plentiful, then i switched to Vista, which was an overnight of technology upgrade because not only i didn't need to upgrade my memory, everything worked fast and aesthetically beautiful. so in my case it was a completely different perspective because to me 98 needed at least 512 to fly, XP needed 1Gig to fly, and Vista needed 2Gigs. relatively subjective. that being said, i've got both OS running at home. and i like them both. XP is like an old car with a long track record that you know "when" and "what" will make it tick. Vista is this new breed that brings you all the upgrades and conveniences which gives you smile. but would i build a machine with less than 2Gig ram and less than 1.5ghz or at least a half way decent video card into a vista platform? of course not! that's like feeding my new 08 SRT HEMI with 87 octane gas that i fed my old Mitsubishi. IT AIN"T GONNA RUN. so untill people stop comparing between different generations of technology, whether it's OS or Cars, we should be greateful that technology is advancing,
RoyRodgers said:
I gave Vista every chance to prove it is better than XP. Dual boot, 4GB RAM, all updates and service packs. Graphics card supports aero & Direct-x 10Remember, same hardware same software. I made a few hacks to the XP desktop so I get almost aero for the visual.Vista is way slower even with 4GB ready boost. I could boot to either and I was booting to Vista for awhile, but I finally got fed up with Vista's sluggishness. I rarely find a reason to boot to Vista now.Microsoft laid an egg with Vista and is wearing the egg on its face. I don't delete the Vista partition because I figure they might eventually come out with a service pack that makes it a better choice than XP.I doubt that they will ever fix Vista, they will probably just come out with version 7 and people will like it because it is better than Vista (looks good by comparison)By the time (years) Microsoft gets around to delivering a stable version of Windows 7 Linux will probably already be mainstream. Netbooks will show a lot of people that Linux can already do everything most people need to do.Another greed-stupid decision - Microsoft decided that everyone should learn how to use their office product all over again. Some people will probably decide to just learn how to use open office (I did)My feeling about Microsoft is that after Vista they don't deserve my money, I am avoiding spending money on their products unless it is the only sensible choice. The last sensible choice I made was when I bought a copy of XP in order to dual boot my new PC. I haven't bought anything from Microsoft since.
jhill3d said:
I get at least twice the amount of work completed now that I run Vista. Not sure why people say it's slower and bloated....I find it very fast and filled with tools and productivity enhancements I simply can't live without. I guess those folks are either noobs or just hate MS. Its a shame these users have nothing better to occupy their time. I think most of it (95%) comes from mac and linux users fronting their background and current toolset just to simply spread bad information. Perhaps they all need to find something productive to accomplish instead.[Edited by jhill3d on 2008-07-27 13:11:07]
Emin3nce said:
Regardless of the mixed debate - which i hardly think was the purpose of this article.The title is a little misleading, "Microsoft tricks people into liking vista" Implies they tricked people into liking vista. A better way to say it would be "Microsoft uses disguise to prove vista rumours false" or something a little more difinitive of the issue.Also FYI microsoft was trying to point out that in the computer market as a whole, your average user can barely handle their pc, let alone know the difference between OS's. The main issues that are unresolved with vista are the more technical ones - which doesn't concern them. All they really care about is "rumours" they hear, and then of course, change. Having to change OS' or even Office versions, is scary to them. Hence this Experiment.I say this as neither a supporter or a critic. I sell computers. Regardless of which is a better operating system, most users have no idea: they come into a store and go "Uh i don't want vista" and you ask them some key questions. They have no idea why they don't like it. The main reason, which they stupidly recite, is that "you need a lot of ram" and by god, with todays prices it's cheaper to actually go a dual channel 2g kit in ddr2 then it is to just go a smaller kit because of market skew.The only thing microsoft really has against it's vista endeavour (if you put aside the various arguments) is the marketing sense: Releasing a new operating system in a couple of years, is going to kill the whole 'vista' need. Not to mention the fact they are letting their sister MAC inflate it's head over.. what? Oh i know, Operating System.But anyway, take this argument to some tired XP VS Vista Forum and blow up a postcount there.[Edited by Emin3nce on 2008-07-27 19:22:16]
kingdingdong said:
RoyRodgers, I think your problem is your running 4gb of readyboost not internal ram. Readyboost is limited by the speed of your USB port. Weather its 1.1 or 2.0. Its just a thought, If you try it let me know how it works out? Hopefully it helps. I run Vista32 and 64 bit with 4gb of G.Skill DDR2 800 and it flies. Ive never been able to max out the ram when working. I play crysis, and burn a dvd, and download, and do what ever all at the same time. Yea I think vista got bashed, but every OS has its probelms. Hey it could be worse you could own a Mac. lol
JBMAC said:
"were showed " - OOPS, shome mishtake shurely!
nazartp said:
Several comments:- hardware-wise, I'm surprised people still have gripes about system requirements. Technology changes and becomes cheaper. I can now get 4GB of memory at half the cost of getting 512MB five years ago. So what's the beef?- Productivity-wise Vista is better then XP. A lot of minor things under the hood that make your life easier. I have no comparison to recent editions of Mac OS X, but I have Lunix Ubuntu installed on one of my machines at home and it is not user friendly compared to either XP or Vista. - Now, have you attempted to swap motherboard, processor and memory in your XP computer, i.e., just have hard drives and peripherals left without reinstalling the system? A pure and utter nightmare only mitigated by a fresh reinstall of the system. I just pulled that trick on my Vista machine - took about 15 minutes for it to recognize new hardware, either ask or download new drivers and go through activation. Been runnin' it for past four month without any problems.To sum it up: I don't think Vista is the best operating system out there. Linux caters either to net-books or people who can actually use the commend prompt and are comfortable with technology. For that subset of people, Linux may be preferable. No hard-core gaming though. Macs piss me off because of misleading advertising, tying their OS to specific machines and expensive hardware upgrades. I used their older systems and did not find those comfortable at all (just an opinion). However, if you want to have fancy browsing of the Internet or edit music on your computer - go ahead get a Mac. Vista (any Windows for that purpose) is mainstream. As a mainstream system built to cater to numerous hardware configurations and trying to please both professional and personal needs, it will always be somewhat a compromise. But having tried various systems and building computers since late 80s, I still believe that Vista so far has been the best system that I personally used.
bcgm3 said:
I'm using Vista right now -- Have been for about a year. I still have XP on another tower, and while it feels like home, I have to say I prefer Vista overall. I've experienced minimal errors or glitches of any sort (less than I did with XP in any given time-frame), have had no issues at all installing hardware (in fact, installing a printer was even easier on my Vista machine than the XP one), find it to be vastly more aesthetically pleasing, and with little effort have been able to customize and tweak system options to my liking (just as I had to do with XP).I, for one, am happy to see Microsoft launch their new "Vista Myth Busting" campaign. As much shameless Windows bashing as I see, I can't help but chuckle to myself when I see that approximately 90% of all computer users are running Windows operating systems.
Boxster17 said:
[b]Originally posted by aolish:[/b][quote]Actually I was more complaining about the jump between XP-Vista was outrageous then it was on 98-XP. You need four times the ram on Vista to make it run like it was on XP thats on 512mb. A Vista machine that has 1GB of ram will function like an XP machine that only has 256mb. But in the end you need 4-8x the ram to make it run decent.[/quote]Who cares though, it's all relative. 4-5 years ago I was paying like 150 bucks for 1GB of RAM, now you can buy 4GB for $100 or less (got some OCZ stuff after rebate for like 70 bucks I think). I fail to see why requiring more ram is a problem when it's ridiculously cheap and probably one of the best improvements you can make for your PC (to some extent).
cottonlane said:
Don't Knock it until you have tryd it. I have had a few problems with Vista, but on the whole I would not go back to XP if you paid me.
sngx1275 said:
I'm late to the party, but to get back to the RAM difference between 98 and Vista... Thats not really a fair comparison, people above have already argued the prices now vs then so I won't rehash that. I want to point out though that you should really be comparing the difference between 95 and XP. XP came out in 2001, 95 in 95. That is a 6 year difference. Vista came out in 2007, also a 6 year difference. You could run 95 on 16 megs of RAM, but most people run XP on 1-2GB of RAM, and most will say 512 is an absolute minimum. The difference between 16 or 32 megs and 512 is a 16x-32x jump in the amount required. Vista is a 4x to 8x jump in the required amount (taking 512megs and comparing to 2-4GB).If Vista runs unacceptably slow on your machine you don't have the hardware to run it, don't bash Vista for that though.
nirkon said:
Haha... I love the tone of this article while the ads on this website right now are from Microsoft[url]
Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.