When an upgrade isn't

User login

Poll

Collaborative Books

Syndicate

What is this?

When an upgrade isn't

Posted on 2008-03-09 10:52 By JacquesC ( Maple Rating 4

1685)

Categories:

The New York Times has a really interesting article ``They criticized Vista. And they should know.'' (you might need to register to see the article, I am not sure). It shows why Vista isn't really an upgrade to XP, mostly through emails between senior Microsoft executives. Basically, they knew it was a dud, and instead of going with the more honest approach they were at first planning, went with really misleading advertizing that made things much worse.

There probably are many good things about Vista under the hood. But the two most visible ones (the pretty interface and the interconnectivity) are such a problem that users hate it. [The interface is a pain on older machines, drivers seem to be a problem all across the board].

I certainly see similarities with certain Maple upgrades (documented at length already on primes) as well as the recent fiasco with the <maple> tag and the lack of notification emails here on primes. As far as shipping an overly buggy Maple, as far as I know the reason is the same as Microsoft's: both companies needed a new product out in the field to keep $$$ flowing in.

JacquesC's blog
Login or register to post comments

Comments

lawsuits

Comment on 2008-03-09 12:03 from jakubi ( Maple Rating 4

798)

I can read this article, apparently without registration.

Is it usual in Northamerica that software companies face lawsuits because of false advertising?

Usual?

Comment on 2008-03-09 15:13 from JacquesC ( Maple Rating 4

1685)

No, such lawsuits are not 'usual'. However, in some cases they appear to be justified.

Over 20 years ago, the so-called 'lemon laws' in the US were instituted because of the harm to consumers caused by bad cars. They were instituted as a response to many successful lawsuits against car companies.

Current consumer protection legislation in most countries have exceptions built-in for software. In other words, you are not allowed to sell bad toasters or bad cars, but it is perfectly OK to sell bad software. It is my personal opinion that in less than 10 years, this will change. Software will have to be "fit for purpose", otherwise the consumer will be either allowed their money back (for simple shrink wrap software) or liability payments (if the software advertised itself as suitable for an engineering or health-related task). The software industry (in general) today is very much like the North American car industry of the mid-70s. There are exceptions: I have talked to software developers who make true "engineering software", and they are much more ready for the era of liability lawsuits than makers of consumer software.