New Media Development

With the release of Windows Vista Microsoft is beating the drum to upgrade or be left behind. But is an upgrade to Vista really the right thing to do for your needs? Lets take a look at some of the propaganda floating around and see if we can filter marketing myth from fact.

Myth #1: Your computer will run faster when you upgrade to Windows Vista.

After 5 years of waiting for a new Windows OS, users have concluded that Vista performs well on computers with dual-core (or quad-core) processors. If you’re one of the many users with an older machine however, Vista’s performance isn’t so highly rated.

Because a Vista installation requires a bare minimum of 512 MB RAM, a 1.6 GHz processor, and at least 1 GB free disk space, it’s preferable to install the OS on a high-performance machine with a fast processor and a ton of memory. And while Vista can be installed on older machines, its performance on systems that just meet the bare minimum is said to be sluggish and slow. According to David Cottingham, a Vista specialist at CDW Inc, computers older than 18-24 months should not be migrated to Windows Vista. Unfortunately, this OS doesn’t perform well unless your Vista upgrade involves an upgrade to a brand new machine too.

Myth #2: Windows Vista is worth the price, the necessary system upgrades, and the hassle involved with its installation.

A blanket statement like that which means a hefty expense can’t be true. Microsoft offers 5 versions of Windows Vista, each with different features and for varying costs. And while a Windows Vista Home Basic edition upgrade seems affordable at $99, the more advanced Ultimate edition upgrade weighs in at $259. Adding to Vista’s base price is that you can only upgrade to Windows Vista Ultimate if you are already running the Vista Home Basic, Home Premium or Business edition of the OS. Were you to jump in and upgrade from Windows XP to Vista Ultimate, you’d need to buy the operating system for $399.

Keep in mind here that I have been using the term “upgrade”. If you were to buy the operating system outright you will be looking at a price range of $199 for Home Basic and up to $399 for Ultimate. When you compare this to buying Mac OSX outright at $118 or downloading any Linux operating system for free you can start to see how this pricing model is a little dubious for trying to cash in on people who think they need to upgrade and stay on windows.

In addition to the cost of the OS, you may have to shell out more money for additional RAM, graphics cards or other hardware. For Vista to perform well, your computer needs to be new or stocked with hardware that exceeds the OS system requirements – all of which involves the purchase of a new machine or expensive hardware upgrades. And after you buy the OS and hardware, you still need to devote your time to actually installing the product. According to user reports of their Vista install experiences, the installation process is not smooth and requires a significant block of time to successfully complete. Technology companies have written many white papers and devoted lots of space to explaining the ins and outs of Vista installation.

Myth #3: All of your software is Windows-based and will not work on non-Windows platforms.

Even if you are running a Windows-based operating system that’s loaded with lots of Microsoft software, all would not be lost were you to migrate off the Windows platform. Open source software is readily available, often for free and with comparable functionality to Microsoft products. More and more well-known companies- such as Hewlett-Packard - have started selling Linux-installed machines, which has the added bonus of increasing the visibility and availability of open source products.

If your specific Windows software has not been ported for Linux, not to worry. Native emulators like WINE will run your windows applications within Linux without the purchase of the XP or Vista operating system and they are free. About 80% of all windows applications will run under WINE without an issue.

Myth #4: Windows Vista is safe, easy-to-use and loaded with features that make it the most stable operating system on the market.

At the end of the day Windows Vista is still a Microsoft product and more vulnerable to security breaches than less widely deployed operating systems such as Linux. The omnipresence of Windows-based computers decreases their overall safety – the payoff for breaching Windows’ security features outweighs that of breaching less-widely used systems. And when security flaws are found in Windows platforms, users have to wait until Microsoft issues patches and Service Packs for the holes to be plugged. With Open Source platforms however, users are making constant tweaks to the system and can identify and fix security flaws immediately.

Since Vista requires major changes, stop for a minute and take the time to look at what your system does. You might find that all the bells and whistles that Microsoft offers you in this new operating systems are not worth the price and will actually slow down your productivity. Linux may save you time, money, and hassle down the road while insuring long term reliability for a little bit of effort. Change is good, but uniformed change can lead to problems.

While working to get this blog up and running, I started thinking about how writing a blog will differ from producing podcasts. The effectiveness of blogs on the Internet is clear given the power political blogs have wielded over the past year. Major stories have increasingly broken in the Blogosphere over the past year, which has led to the increased credibility of blogs as news sources. In the same time, podcasts and videocasts have gained in number and popularity, yet are viewed as a sort of fad which has started to fade. The question I pose is this: Can both blogs and podcasts coexist on the Internet as credible news and information sources?

I believe that the coexistence of blogs and podcasts will rely heavily on how the mediums are used and how their information is dispersed. Blogs are still viewed as a grass roots way to reach an audience simply through the force of ideas, all while providing a quick and steady stream of information that can be digested in several ways depending on the speed of the consumer. Because of this, blogs tends to appeal to politically minded people who thrive on dynamic, idea-driven content. Reaching blog audiences has been a challenge for advertisers however, and as of yet, they have not found an effective method of harnessing the power of blogs for promotional purposes.

At the same time, podcasts are easy for advertisers to grasp given the ability to use radio advertising as a model. And in contrast to blogs, podcasts are harder for news organizations to use because of the time involved in creating podcasts - it takes 2-3 times longer to create a radio show than to create a blog entry, and 4-6 times longer to produce a video. Downloading and listening to a podcast also takes more time on the part of users than it does to read a blog.

Given these differences, is it possible for blogs and podcasts to play on the same field? I think they can, because each medium allows you to target the same market at different times. Blogs are great for quick updates, breaking news, and audience interaction - especially during work days and off-hours. Podcasts work well for longer discussion pieces, to wrap up news, or for general entertainment. Podcasts tend to be accessed during “Drive Time,” or on portable music players while listeners are working out, commuting or running errands.

Think of a blog as your breaking news source while a podcast or videocast is your in-depth report on the same issues - just looked at from different angles. When there is an understanding that blogs and podcasts can work together to reach the same audiences at different times, than these mediums will gain equal respect in the media community.