In a recent interview with CNET News.com, the Symantec CEO was asked if he had installed Microsoft's new OS. Thompson replies:
Thompson: No, I have not. I see no need for it for what I do online today. The machine that I use is the one provided by our company, and we have not made a commitment to migrate to Vista and therefore there is no reason for me to use Vista.
A little snippy, if you ask me, but I know what Thompson's saying: I too wouldn't run out to buy something if my needs already were being met by current tools. Unless, of course, I succumbed to a marketing blitz. Or were able to trick someone else into paying for it. You know, a mark, a patsy, a chump.
Then Thompson goes on to blast Vista in more specific terms:
Consumers should not be confused. Vista is not a security solution. Vista is an operating system, and Vista provides some very important advances from Microsoft's perspective and for the industry's point of view on building a more stable, more reliable, more secure operating platform...
Stop right there! You have to admit that stuff sounds pretty good.
...but people still need the efficacy that comes with the products that Symantec and others in the industry build, and so we should not be confused by the marketing rhetoric with what Vista is. It's a hopefully much better product than XP or any of its predecessors, but it's not a security solution.
"People still need the efficacy"? I hope that's not Thompson's idea of effective marketing rhetoric.
Coincidentally, just before I read this interview I was talking with an industry expert on Microsoft, and he was saying that he would recommend Vista to users, something he couldn't say about XP.
These conflicting opinions confuse me. However, soon I'll be able to form my own opinions of Vista. I've ordered a laptop with the new OS and should get it in a week or so. I'll let you know how it goes.
Comment and Contribute
