What took Windows Vista development so long?

[Atomic Wanderer Chicken]

Why did Windows Vista take such a long time to be developed then released? I remember when Vista was released how cool it looked, but it's "looks" required very high pc requirements for the time! Some pcs today still cant run Vista LOL

[Gotenks98]

Thats because they had to start over when they got close to release. Vista was fine when it was finally released. Its just that Microsoft didnt put their foot down about what systems would be certified to run it. Too many systems were sold with vista that could barely run Windows 2000 let alone XP or Vista. Then the OEMs took way too long to come out with drivers eventhough they had alot of time to write drivers. Fast forward a bit and we have Windows 7 which is just Vista with better marketing.

[BajiRav]

Vista didn't take much longer than say 7 or 8 (or even XP), they lost a bunch of time when Longhorn didn't turn out as it was supposed to be.

[HawkMan]

wonder where this is going to lead... though I don't see the connection...

As was said, Vista was fine on release, if your hardware runs windows 7 fine, it runs Vista fine, there's some minor perfromance difference but nothing huge. it was all about drivers and lazy hardware developers who produced false claims. and yeah, about 2 years before relase they did a full rollback to start.

[Atomic Wanderer Chicken]

Windows 7 is undoubtedly what Windows Vista should have been! Windows 8 is even faster and better, it is in fact almost as fast as XP now! Windows 7 took about 2 years after vista, and then 8 took about 3!

[notchinese]

They re-wrote much of the Operating system after they realized that Longhorn was a disaster. That is what took so long. Also, it was a very, very significant change over Windows XP in pretty much all respects. Few operating system upgrades have as many changes as XP -> Vista.

Why did Windows Vista take such a long time to be developed then released? I remember when Vista was released how cool it looked, but it's "looks" required very high pc requirements for the time! Some pcs today still cant run Vista LOL

Thats not true, I don't know what "PCs" you are using.

[HawkMan]

Windows 7 is undoubtedly what Windows Vista should have been! Windows 8 is even faster and better, it is in fact almost as fast as XP now! Windows 7 took about 2 years after vista, and then 8 took about 3!

7 was already faster than XP. Vista was also faster than XP in most circumstances.

[Atomic Wanderer Chicken]

Vista introduced alot of new features which are in Windows 7 and 8 now! It required such high requirements though, and many pcs had 512mbs of ram still back in 07!

[BajiRav]

7 was already faster than XP. Vista was also faster than XP in most circumstances.

I honestly never noticed any performance difference between Vista SP2 and 7 RTM.

[Elliot B.]

Development of Windows Vista occurred over the span of five and a half years, starting in earnest in May 2001, prior to the release of Microsoft's Windows XP operating system, and continuing until November 2006.

Microsoft originally expected to ship the new version sometime late in 2003 as a minor step between Windows XP (codenamed "Whistler") and Windows 7 (codenamed "Blackcomb" and "Vienna"). Vista's original codename, "Longhorn", was an allusion to this plan: While Whistler and Blackcomb are large ski resorts in British Columbia, Longhorn is the name of a bar between the two mountains that Whistler's visitors pass to reach Blackcomb.

Gradually, Windows "Longhorn" assimilated many of the important new features and technologies slated for "Blackcomb", resulting in the release date being pushed back a few times. Many of Microsoft's developers were also re-tasked with improving the security of Windows XP. Faced with ongoing delays and concerns about feature creep, Microsoft announced on August 27, 2004 that it was making significant changes. "Longhorn" development basically started afresh, building on the Windows Server 2003 codebase, and re-incorporating only the features that would be intended for an actual operating system release. Some previously announced features, such as WinFS and NGSCB, were dropped or postponed.

After "Longhorn" was named Windows Vista in mid-2005, an unprecedented beta-test program was started which involved hundreds of thousands of volunteers and companies. Between September 2005 and October 2006, Microsoft released regular Community Technology Previews (CTP) to beta testers, and two release candidates to the general public. Development of Windows Vista came to a conclusion with the November 8, 2006 announcement of its completion by co-president of Windows development, Jim Allchin.

More detailed information here: http://en.wikipedia....f_Windows_Vista

[wotsit]

Weren't staff pulled off of Vista to urgently develop the much needed and radical (for a SP) XP Service Pack 2?

[Atomic Wanderer Chicken]

It is almost like Microsoft was meticulously crafting this perfected Windows os (vista). I had Vista running on a system about 2 years ago, and it was not that bad, but Windows 7 is noticibly alot faster and better! Windows 8 is even better and very close to the level of Windows XP's speed now.

[HawkMan]

you're the example of positive memories always being stronger than negative. XP was NEVER as fast as 7 or 8.

[Elliot B.]

The reason is simple: The code under the hood of Vista was to be the basis of Windows for the next few releases, so they worked a lot on it.

[Ian W]

Windows 7 is undoubtedly what Windows Vista should have been! Windows 8 is even faster and better, it is in fact almost as fast as XP now! Windows 7 took about 2 years after vista, and then 8 took about 3!

I like to think that Windows 7 is what Windows Vista would have been, if not for the aforementioned development issues.

Several of the features currently available in 7 were conceived (at least in part) during development of Vista:

- HomeGroup (a similar idea / feature called Castle was slated for Windows Vista),

- Libraries (in the beta builds of Vista, there were even Virtual Folders on the Start menu),

- and perhaps Aero Peek and Aero Snap.

[Nick H. Supervisor]

Windows 7 is undoubtedly what Windows Vista should have been! Windows 8 is even faster and better, it is in fact almost as fast as XP now! Windows 7 took about 2 years after vista, and then 8 took about 3!

[Denis W. Veteran]

Didn't really have that good of an experience in the early days of Vista even though my first laptop was one of the first to come preloaded with it. The initial disk thrashing the OS did contributed to the perceived slowness of the OS, file transfer operations were slow (on top of an additional unnecessary dialog for deleting files requiring admin privileges), with the graphics drivers back then the DWM tended to deteriorate after a while requiring a service restart, etc.

Can't really place all the blame on a particular party. Hardware manufacturers dropped the ball on drivers, Microsoft dropped the ball on "Vista Capable" and the Ultimate Extras that amounted to little (plus minor annoying UI quirks such as the above which were resolved in SPs)...

On equivalent hardware at the time XP tended to be snappier - thus I kept a dual boot of install on my main desktop back then. Never had to bother with a dual boot since Windows 7 and same for 8. Now Microsoft is serious about optimizing Windows for speed and efficiency and it shows.

... but yes, back to the topic. The only relevant development time was that span of a bit over 1.5 years when the OS developed rapidly through CTPs. That would hopefully be the last time we see a Windows build evolve that rapidly between "beta" releases.

[MS Bob 11]

This is an interesting article about Vista development delays: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB112743680328349448,00.html . That and the great Windows legend, Jim Allchin, had cancer during its development: http://mylifemagazine.com/from-microsoft-to-music-jim-allchin