Is Microsoft going to delay Windows Vista?
Posted by Brad Wardell on 13 July 2006 - 02:35 · 78 comments & 31218 views
Windows Vista is due to be generally available in January 2007. But as most beta testers can tell you, it's going to be tough to make that date. Worse, for Microsoft, Apple is poised to release Leopard (the next version of MacOS X) at the same time. MacOS X is already a stable platform -- now running on Intel.
The challenge Microsoft faces is wanting to make its deadline (and not anger its Software Assurance subscribers with an additional delay) versus being sure that its next-generation version of Windows is truly ready to go.
Windows XP, which was largely a minor update to Windows 2000, was basically ready to go by May 2001. Windows Vista beta 2 and even the current build are not quite ready to be used full-time by most power users. It's getting there. Each build makes progress. But time is running out.
Mary Jo Foley at Microsoft-Watch has an article that goes into more detail. Neowin will have some more stories on this issue shortly.
News source: Microsoft-Watch
About the Author
Full name: Brad Wardell
Forum name: Frogboy
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Brad Wardell
Forum name: Frogboy
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(2 replies)
#1 Posted by MrCobra on 13 Jul 2006 - 02:52
- Vista will be delayed again and more features stripped out of it.
-
#1.1 Posted by shockz on 13 Jul 2006 - 03:09
- I'm betting it will be delayed again... but how much else can they take out of it... anymore and you could call it XP.
-
(6 replies)
#2 Posted by techdude5875 on 13 Jul 2006 - 03:05
- How about Microsoft gets more people on the Windows Vista team!
Maybe we can have a beta 3 or beta 4 and have Microsoft break at least one promise "that 5308 was feature complete" and have more features comming in the door like Vector Glass and Desktop Aurora!
-
#2.1 Posted by MioTheGreat on 13 Jul 2006 - 03:15
- More people != More Efficient
-
#2.2 Posted by phantasmorph on 13 Jul 2006 - 04:16
- Quote -have Microsoft break at least one promise "that 5308 was feature complete" and have more features comming in the door like Vector Glass and Desktop Aurora!
Yeah, because god knows mickeysoft needs to focus on the important stuff, like adding pointless vaporware eyecandy, right? -
#2.3 Posted by powowcow on 13 Jul 2006 - 10:02
- [quote=phantasmorph][quote]Yeah, because god knows mickeysoft needs to focus on the important stuff, like adding pointless vaporware eyecandy, right?[/quote]
Mickeysoft? Why can't bloody people call it by the right name. And btw, don't insult the mouse.
-
#2.4 Posted by XerXis on 13 Jul 2006 - 17:31
- Quote - phantasmorph said @ #2.2Quote -have Microsoft break at least one promise "that 5308 was feature complete" and have more features comming in the door like Vector Glass and Desktop Aurora!
Yeah, because god knows mickeysoft needs to focus on the important stuff, like adding pointless vaporware eyecandy, right?
saying mickeysoft just voids your entire post, grow up -
#2.5 Posted by fpd on 13 Jul 2006 - 19:47
- Quote - XerXis said @ #2.4Quote - phantasmorph said @ #2.2Quote -have Microsoft break at least one promise "that 5308 was feature complete" and have more features comming in the door like Vector Glass and Desktop Aurora!
Yeah, because god knows mickeysoft needs to focus on the important stuff, like adding pointless vaporware eyecandy, right?
saying mickeysoft just voids your entire post, grow up
It's called sarcasm, grow up -
#2.6 Posted by Xavien on 14 Jul 2006 - 04:42
- it is well known that the more people you add to a software project the less efficent the team as a whole gets. So just chucking more people at it, is only going to make vista delayed even more.
Think about it, you take people from lets say the office team and dump them with the windows team, they'll need a few months atleast to get used to the new processes and validation methods of working on the windows project rather then the office project, this will slow down the team as a whole, as those assigned to certain parts of the OS will unable to complete what they have been assigned to until they are used to the new processes and validations.
Imho, the whole validation and middle management of windows projects in the future has to change, otherwise we'll be facing the same long wait for a stripped down Vienna
-
(2 replies)
#3 Posted by fracture_x on 13 Jul 2006 - 03:05
- aieee, sheeesh, how many times do we have to read and discuss about this? it is going to come and go. It may be late so what? OSX is running on intel sure. but people will still use windows because that's what they are used to and most of the software they are used to runs on windows. there may be a slight shift in favor for apple yeah. and what does this all mean? in a year from now I probably will be sitting somewhere in a cafe and type on my vista ready notebook and I will be using it no matter how pretty osx is. and I know that most of the people I know will be still running some type of windows.
why the h... am I even writing here? nothing else to do, better go and grab a cup of coffee
tgd -
#3.1 Posted by akito85 on 13 Jul 2006 - 10:46
- another microsoft geek lol, well the problem is when microsoft will release vista? compare to mac that going to release leopard soon...
I think the result will the same as win xp, takes time to release and lots of bugs.. and you going to use that -
#3.2 Posted by mrmckeb on 13 Jul 2006 - 13:19
- Quote - akito85 said @ #3.1another microsoft geek lol, well the problem is when microsoft will release vista? compare to mac that going to release leopard soon...Another Apple geek lol, why don't you buy a mac for the same price as an equivalent PC and then pay more money to get a real OS! :p
I think the result will the same as win xp, takes time to release and lots of bugs.. and you going to use that
-
#4 Posted by Croquant on 13 Jul 2006 - 03:21
- It's all just idle speculation at this point. Give it a rest, people.
-
#5 Posted by sub999 on 13 Jul 2006 - 03:22
- It is okay for them to delay. As a PC user, I am free. I can use any OS and switch back and forth. While M$ is developing Vista, I use XP and many different new Linux OSes for fun. When Vista is ready, I will get it off the shelf
-
(18 replies)
#6 Posted by excalpius on 13 Jul 2006 - 03:30
- "MacOS X is already a stable platform -- now running on Intel."
Um, so's Windows XP, you know the Operating System that is ACTUALLY the same generation as OS X? Unless you are going to compare Vista to a whole new ground level code rewrite of the Mac ( GUI+Unix ) OS, I don't see the point at all.
Why in the world are we reading YET ANOTHER piece of drivel about a BETA OS that might or might not be delayed? We've read this a hundred times in as many days.
We got it. Really, we did...months ago. -
#6.1 Posted by phantasmorph on 13 Jul 2006 - 04:17
- Quote -Unless you are going to compare Vista to a whole new ground level code rewrite
Which is funny, because that wouldn't apply to Vista either. -
#6.2 Posted by LTD on 13 Jul 2006 - 04:41
- XP was indeed the same generation as OS X, except for the fact that it was already behind the times when it was released. And horribly flawed, to boot.
XP is *not* stable. Period. Any OS that requires third-party software to prevent it from slowing down and crippling completely due to spyware, adware, viruses, and assorted crap being written to the registry and left in folders unbeknownst to the poor user, is fundamentally inferior to any other similar gui-driven OS that cleans itself, requires user-permission to write anything to it's filesystem, and which heretofore remains virtually immune to viruses.
XP is stable only if actively, consistently *maintained* by a user with more than a little computer-savvy. And the tools that come with the OS can't even manage that.
Hopefully Vista will improve on this mess. MS has already taken plenty of cues from OS X. Hopefully it will continue to do so in the areas which are truly important.
-
#6.3 Posted by sub999 on 13 Jul 2006 - 05:10
- Quote - LTD said @ #6.2XP was indeed the same generation as OS X, except for the fact that it was already behind the times when it was released. And horribly flawed, to boot.
XP is *not* stable. Period. Any OS that requires third-party software to prevent it from slowing down and crippling completely due to spyware, adware, viruses, and assorted crap being written to the registry and left in folders unbeknownst to the poor user, is fundamentally inferior to any other similar gui-driven OS that cleans itself, requires user-permission to write anything to it's filesystem, and which heretofore remains virtually immune to viruses.
XP is stable only if actively, consistently *maintained* by a user with more than a little computer-savvy. And the tools that come with the OS can't even manage that.
Hopefully Vista will improve on this mess. MS has already taken plenty of cues from OS X. Hopefully it will continue to do so in the areas which are truly important.
In fact, OSX fresh boot time is painfully much much longer than XP. Apple better solution to this is *somewhat* similar to hibernation feature in XP. Therefore, MAC user doesn't have to sit there and wait for the MAC to boot.
XP SP2 is definitely stable even you don't actively maintain it. The reason people gets spyware, trojans because they visit *trapped* websites like porn, download illegal software from unknown source. It is simple. You don't have protection, don't go there.
MAC OSX would suffer the same problem if it become popular. I never believe in such a perfect OS like some MAC OS fans think. It is just because their OS did not have a chane to be put through extreme condition test.
I personally use MAC OSX for a long time but I am never satisfied with it. It is limited of possibilities, and less freedom. -
#6.4 Posted by phantasmorph on 13 Jul 2006 - 05:52
- Quote - sub999 said @ #6.3MAC OSX would suffer the same problem if it become popular. I never believe in such a perfect OS like some MAC OS fans think. It is just because their OS did not have a chane to be put through extreme condition test.
I personally use MAC OSX for a long time but I am never satisfied with it. It is limited of possibilities, and less freedom.
If you truely had any understanding of the fundimental differences between a *nix-based operating system and Windows, you'd realize that that argument holds no water. There are more attacks for Windows because it's EASY, not because it's more "popular". If you prefer Windows, fine, more power to you. But these justifications and excuses people make for the inadequacies of Windows/Microsoft is getting idiotic. Windows was designed with security as an afterthought. That has been the case all the way up to XP, and UAC is microsoft's ham-fisted attempt at balancing the scale in Vista, and as usual, they screwed it up. Maybe someday Microsoft will learn the right stuff to copy, instead of the pointless eyecandy and other tired concepts. -
#6.5 Posted by Tiburon on 13 Jul 2006 - 07:12
- Quote - sub999 said @ #6.3
In fact, OSX fresh boot time is painfully much much longer than XP. Apple better solution to this is *somewhat* similar to hibernation feature in XP. Therefore, MAC user doesn't have to sit there and wait for the MAC to boot.
I personally use MAC OSX for a long time but I am never satisfied with it. It is limited of possibilities, and less freedom.
Last I checked my mac boots up in under 20 seconds -
#6.6 Posted by Joshua-San on 13 Jul 2006 - 07:44
- Quote - Tiburon said @ #6.5Quote - sub999 said @ #6.3
In fact, OSX fresh boot time is painfully much much longer than XP. Apple better solution to this is *somewhat* similar to hibernation feature in XP. Therefore, MAC user doesn't have to sit there and wait for the MAC to boot.
I personally use MAC OSX for a long time but I am never satisfied with it. It is limited of possibilities, and less freedom.
Last I checked my mac boots up in under 20 seconds
Tada, argument blown -
#6.7 Posted by sub999 on 13 Jul 2006 - 07:57
- [quote=Joshua-San said,#6.6][quote=Tiburon said,#6.5][quote=sub999 said,#6.3]
Last I checked my mac boots up in under 20 seconds[/quote]
Tada, argument blown[/quote]
hahaha you are a liar! haha -
#6.8 Posted by sub999 on 13 Jul 2006 - 08:04
- Quote - phantasmorph said @ #6.4
If you truely had any understanding of the fundimental differences between a *nix-based operating system and Windows, you'd realize that that argument holds no water. There are more attacks for Windows because it's EASY, not because it's more "popular". If you prefer Windows, fine, more power to you. But these justifications and excuses people make for the inadequacies of Windows/Microsoft is getting idiotic. Windows was designed with security as an afterthought. That has been the case all the way up to XP, and UAC is microsoft's ham-fisted attempt at balancing the scale in Vista, and as usual, they screwed it up. Maybe someday Microsoft will learn the right stuff to copy, instead of the pointless eyecandy and other tired concepts.
Talking about EASY, you are totally wrong. If it is really easy, so all hackers are *NORMAL*. And We are all IDIOT??!? You can sit there and hack a new XP hole for us to see?
MAC OSX is not even popular enough. If it was, all bloody hackers would turn their head to and hack it. Imagine a day when all computers in the world are MAC machines. -
#6.9 Posted by dangel on 13 Jul 2006 - 09:03
- Quote - phantasmorph said @ #6.1Quote -Unless you are going to compare Vista to a whole new ground level code rewrite
Which is funny, because that wouldn't apply to Vista either.
Can't say I agree at all - Vista is inherently different from XP under the hood - the kernel, networking, driver model, display model etc etc bear very little relation to their precursors. What on earth do you think 4,000 developers at MS have been up too for all this time? Rehashing XP? Hardly. -
#6.10 Posted by Syphonic on 13 Jul 2006 - 09:34
- Quote - phantasmorph said @ #6.4Imagine a day when all computers in the world are MAC machines.
Imagine a day when people finally learn that we are talking about Mac and not Media Access Control. -
#6.11 Posted by Toastyone on 13 Jul 2006 - 11:17
- [quote=sub999 said,#6.3][quote=LTD said,#6.2]
In fact, OSX fresh boot time is painfully much much longer than XP. Apple better solution to this is *somewhat* similar to hibernation feature in XP. Therefore, MAC user doesn't have to sit there and wait for the MAC to boot.
[/quote]
That is a total lie :p My Apple mini takes 17 seconds from being completely off to being ready to go... Even my XP computer with a 3500+ and a raptor for the OS drive is not quite as fast, takes 23 seconds to be ready to roll -
#6.12 Posted by hotdog963al on 13 Jul 2006 - 11:45
- Gotta love Windows fanboys! 8-)
I think Sub999 needs to actually use a Macintosh before he starts typing anymore crap.
Both are good dude, why side with one, when you can use both in perfect harmony?
-
#6.13 Posted by sub999 on 13 Jul 2006 - 14:48
- Quote - Syphonic said @ #6.10Quote - phantasmorph said @ #6.4Imagine a day when all computers in the world are MAC machines.
Imagine a day when people finally learn that we are talking about Mac and not Media Access Control.
Does it mean anything else if I write "Pc"? -
#6.14 Posted by sub999 on 13 Jul 2006 - 14:49
- Quote - hotdog963al said @ #6.12Gotta love Windows fanboys! 8-)
I think Sub999 needs to actually use a Macintosh before he starts typing anymore crap.
Both are good dude, why side with one, when you can use both in perfect harmony?
Sorry, I am also using a Mac dude. -
#6.15 Posted by mrelusive978 on 13 Jul 2006 - 16:12
- Quote - Syphonic said @ #6.10Quote - phantasmorph said @ #6.4Imagine a day when all computers in the world are MAC machines.
Imagine a day when people finally learn that we are talking about Mac and not Media Access Control.
Right the fsck on. This is my biggest internet pet peeve. -
#6.16 Posted by phantasmorph on 13 Jul 2006 - 16:25
- Quote - mrelusive978 said @ #6.15Quote - Syphonic said @ #6.10Quote - phantasmorph said @ #6.4Imagine a day when all computers in the world are MAC machines.
Imagine a day when people finally learn that we are talking about Mac and not Media Access Control.
Right the fsck on. This is my biggest internet pet peeve.
You know what would really be cool? If I wasn't quoted as saying something I never said, anywhere in this entire thread. Can someone show me where I said anything about MAC machines? I don't know where the hell that quote came from, but it wasn't me.Quote - sub999 said @ #6.8Talking about EASY, you are totally wrong. If it is really easy, so all hackers are *NORMAL*. And We are all IDIOT??!? You can sit there and hack a new XP hole for us to see?
Don't know about *all* idiots, but I can say at this point that the description describes you pretty well, especially after all the crap you've let spill in this thread. -
#6.17 Posted by Coolme on 14 Jul 2006 - 00:44
- Quote - dangel said @ #6.9Quote - phantasmorph said @ #6.1Quote -Unless you are going to compare Vista to a whole new ground level code rewrite
Which is funny, because that wouldn't apply to Vista either.
Can't say I agree at all - Vista is inherently different from XP under the hood - the kernel, networking, driver model, display model etc etc bear very little relation to their precursors. What on earth do you think 4,000 developers at MS have been up too for all this time? Rehashing XP? Hardly.Quote -"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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_vista
Let me refresh your memory a bit... back in Vista's early days (longhorn 3xxx build) http://winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_alpha.asp you can definitely tell that Microsoft has built Vista on top of Windows 2003. The new features that you've mentioned, the new driver/network model and other features you didn't mention, winfx, avalon, indigo were all added ON TOP of windows sever 2003 along with other huge enhancements. (visually, and feature wise)
The main blame for the lack of productivity on the vista project is the bureaucracy, if you listen to the Neowin News Podcast (I think it's #2), you will know that new builds has to go through 13 (I think) levels of management for approval. So there wasn't much that could be done because the internal structure of developement in Microsoft was so inefficient. -
#6.18 Posted by Tiburon on 14 Jul 2006 - 01:34
- [quote=sub999 said,#6.7][quote=Joshua-San said,#6.6][quote=Tiburon said,#6.5][quote=sub999 said,#6.3]
Last I checked my mac boots up in under 20 seconds[/quote]
Tada, argument blown[/quote]
hahaha you are a liar! haha[/quote]
I have an intel mac, ask anyone that has one of them, they boot up substantially faster than older ppc based macs.
-
(7 replies)
#7 Posted by roxics on 13 Jul 2006 - 03:41
- I don't understand, who out there is so impatient that they just have to use Vista right now? Besides of course fanboy's with insatiable appetites for new software.
It's not like most people are going to suddenly start migrating in droves over to OSX just because Vista isn't out yet. So why is OSX even brought up? -
#7.1 Posted by markjensen on 13 Jul 2006 - 03:56
- Because they are a business. They have stockholders. They need new product out to generate new sales.
That's why. -
#7.3 Posted by dangel on 13 Jul 2006 - 09:04
- Quote - markjensen said @ #7.1Because they are a business. They have stockholders. They need new product out to generate new sales.
That's why.
Sure, they're only going to make 19 Billion this year - tough times for any company -
#7.4 Posted by Jugalator on 13 Jul 2006 - 15:40
- Quote -Sure, they're only going to make 19 Billion this year - tough times for any company
How tough times that would be for Microsoft would depend on the stockholder's expected results compares to Microsoft's actual results. Microsoft's results are below, and company value is possibly reduced through stock sales, and that's surely nothing Microsoft wants to see happen. -
#7.5 Posted by dangel on 13 Jul 2006 - 15:46
- Quote - Jugalator said @ #7.4Quote -Sure, they're only going to make 19 Billion this year - tough times for any company
How tough times that would be for Microsoft would depend on the stockholder's expected results compares to Microsoft's actual results. Microsoft's results are below, and company value is possibly reduced through stock sales, and that's surely nothing Microsoft wants to see happen.
MS have shedloads of hard cash in the bank - they're not living hand to mouth now are they? They could sit on Vista for a year without taking any meaningful financial hit long term.. ATM they could pay off the EU fine in what, three days worth of takings or something? MS can more than afford to take the time to get Vista right - and I for one would rather they did so! -
#7.6 Posted by selphj on 13 Jul 2006 - 16:05
- Quote - dangel said @ #7.3
Sure, they're only going to make 19 Billion this year - tough times for any company
I don't think so. I assume you are exagurating. Apple in past years was running in the red. At least they are in the black these days, but they still aren't doing that great.
-
(1 reply)
#8 Posted by Neomac v6 on 13 Jul 2006 - 03:56
- Despite Boot Camp and Parallels, OS X won't be a threat to Windows till it's licensed out. Then MS will have one hell of a fight on its hands!
-
(1 reply)
#9 Posted by xfodder on 13 Jul 2006 - 04:10
- yes OSX was released at the same time as XP but OSX IS what microsoft is attempting to do with Vista, sure windows will always dominate certain markets ... but what about your average computer user ? the person who just checks emails, surfs the web, makes documents etc. ? a few years ago they wouldn't have even considered buying a mac ... but now apple is in a strong position ... they are slowly addressing all the reasons that many people had for not 'switching' meanwhile microsoft is having problems developing their answer to OSX ... the worst problem i have heard is what Brad said on the Poweruser Podcast ... that vista whilst running the new '3d desktop' on laptops gives a battery life of less than an hour !
Say what you like about apple ... but the truth is they are changing the way people perceive macintosh products.
Oh and i'm no macintosh 'fanboy' i use XP and OSX, and when vista is truly ready i will buy it ... but if microsoft release it to early ... i wont buy it. -
#9.1 Posted by bluarash on 13 Jul 2006 - 05:41
- Now if Apple could only get people to actually use their products. They account for less than 4% (probably 2%) of the total market (not just sales). To believe otherwise, would be to consider the a worldwide media conspiracy against Apple. This of course is not possible.
They do have cool products, but they are too expensive (because of initial cost). The one expection to this is the iPod. The honest truth is no one will switch because of the massive investment in Windows based software and hardware. Does OSX run my crappy Visioneer 9020 scanner, how about a native copy of Nero? Will OSX run on a hardware based solution I build for myself? Will OSX run on commodity hardware I purchased from an Asian or Mid-American supplier? How about all those wonderful networks solutions that many companies have been locked into. Does Apple have a solution that will allow me to read and write to my Access databases ((not Boot-Camp or Parallels)).
Note: I actually prefer open source software like Linux/BSD, but am just trying to point out why a massive switch to Linux or Macintosh will never happen. I mean, it will never, ever, happen. This is sad...
-
#10 Posted by Bamsebjørn on 13 Jul 2006 - 06:35
- I really don't care if it takes another year or a year and a half. As long as they release a finished operating system... and somehow I have the feeling that Vista will be the most stable and finished Windows version since 3.11.
I'm only hoping Microsoft isn't going to release a buggy Vista in January because 'they promised'.
-
(1 reply)
#11 Posted by unkle stu on 13 Jul 2006 - 07:50
- the truth is that lots of people are quite content with xp. there's no need to rush vista.
-
(4 replies)
#12 Posted by jhatcher16 on 13 Jul 2006 - 08:06
- Yeah I keep on saying this. It doesn't matter when they release it. People will still keep buying Windows. The average ccomputer user will go into a store (PC World etc etc) and ask to buy a PC. They'll then get Windows.
You ask anyone off the street, and I can guarantee you that at the present moment, 80% of them won't either have heard, or used OSX. -
#12.1 Posted by dangel on 13 Jul 2006 - 09:07
- Quote - jhatcher16 said @ #12Yeah I keep on saying this. It doesn't matter when they release it. People will still keep buying Windows. The average ccomputer user will go into a store (PC World etc etc) and ask to buy a PC. They'll then get Windows.
You ask anyone off the street, and I can guarantee you that at the present moment, 80% of them won't either have heard, or used OSX.
Absolutely - all this OSX talk is pretty redundant in the real world. Sure, it's a nice OS in many respects but it offers no real advantage over Windows and your tied into Apple's (often) expensive and narrow range of hardware. Personally, I think linux is far more appealing and has the distinct advantage of costing nothing.. -
#12.2 Posted by Neomac v6 on 13 Jul 2006 - 13:07
- Actually OS X and Mac-only apps offer many advantages over Windows from a usability point of view. But you're right insofar as people can continue using Windows quite happily without knowing what they're missing.
-
#12.3 Posted by dangel on 13 Jul 2006 - 15:08
- Quote - Neomac v6 said @ #12.2Actually OS X and Mac-only apps offer many advantages over Windows from a usability point of view. But you're right insofar as people can continue using Windows quite happily without knowing what they're missing.
Ok - i'm curious - what advantages? -
#12.4 Posted by Neomac v6 on 14 Jul 2006 - 07:51
- Exactly what I said, usability advantages: cleaner, less cluttered, intuitive GUI with more attention to detail (reflected across most Mac apps as Apple strictly enforces its Human Interface Guidelines), better integration between apps, less susceptibility to malware, better integration with the hardware etc. Windows users can live without these benefits, but why should they?
Incidentally, it's "you're" not "your".
-
#13 Posted by Guol on 13 Jul 2006 - 08:55
- why not stop the damn conspiracies and just wait..
-
(2 replies)
#14 Posted by Orange on 13 Jul 2006 - 09:33
- Microsoft should change it's name to Microdelay
-
#14.1 Posted by hotdog963al on 13 Jul 2006 - 11:47
- Microdelay? more like MASSIVEdelay!
-
#14.2 Posted by chimera963 on 13 Jul 2006 - 13:20
- Damn right.
-
#15 Posted by thefunkymunky on 13 Jul 2006 - 09:36
- Quote -Is Microsoft going to delay Windows Vista?
Short answer. Yes.
-
#16 Posted by Fr@nKy on 13 Jul 2006 - 10:09
- Yes! It will be delayed. My bet is second half January 2007 for Corporations (RTM) and the consumer version for March/April 2007. And this being optimistic.
-
#17 Posted by Neomac v6 on 13 Jul 2006 - 13:08
- Hrm, at this rate they might be able to incorporate some Leopard features.
-
#18 Posted by chimera963 on 13 Jul 2006 - 13:22
- Woooo another delay. I don't give a damn, I won't update to Vista for years, coz at the moment, it just seems like XP with a crappy OTT interface and fast searching, not worth it. I'm not bothered by the delay, I just laugh at it :p Bring on Leopard, Apple!
-
(1 reply)
#19 Posted by Tech001101 on 13 Jul 2006 - 14:12
- would be crappy if after all these delays and the final is released they still haven't gotten it right.
wierd thing is I've stopped following Vista's developments after the constant delays and setbacks....plus the ridiculous hardware requirements....
I've been looking at Mac and Linux news more lately. -
#19.1 Posted by chimera963 on 13 Jul 2006 - 19:03
- When have MS EVER gotten it right?!?!
good on you mate, nice to see someone checking out different OS's, rather than windows, though XP is you need!
-
(1 reply)
#20 Posted by C_Guy on 13 Jul 2006 - 14:20
- Who the crap writes these articles anyway?
First of all, Windows could be classified as "already stable" since Windows 2000 and has long been running on Intel so Apple has nothing on Windows. And anyone who's seen the screenshtos of 10.5 will (not be) shocked to see that it's virtually identical to 10.4 and 10.3. Upgrading from OS X 10.4 to OS X 10.5 is like going from Windows XP SP1 to XP SP2. "Leopard" is not a threat, I don't know why people are so concerned over it.
Finally, anyone who actually knows computers knows that XP was not a "minor" update, it was a huge improvement over Windows 2000. The key feature of Windows XP is that it brought home and business users together on the same platform whereas before, home users were urged to use Windows 9x/ME and business users were urged to use Windows 2000. -
#20.1 Posted by dangel on 13 Jul 2006 - 15:16
- Quote - C_Guy said @ #20Finally, anyone who actually knows computers knows that XP was not a "minor" update, it was a huge improvement over Windows 2000. The key feature of Windows XP is that it brought home and business users together on the same platform whereas before, home users were urged to use Windows 9x/ME and business users were urged to use Windows 2000.
The reason why people see XP as a minor update is because in some senses it was - XP was everything 2000 should of been out the box. MS call XP NT 5.1 internally, and 2000 was NT 5.0 - they're both based on the same codebase and therefore have a lot in common. Not that i'm saying XP isn't significantly different - it's far more capable in a lot of areas and your point about the home and business user meeting is very much valid. Vista is NT 6.0 because it's such a huge departure from the 'patch it up' mentality of previous versions of Windows and is instead a major rewrite in almost every area.
-
(2 replies)
#21 Posted by dangel on 13 Jul 2006 - 14:23
- "The low end one will need a speed of at least 800MHz, 512MB of system memory and a graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable. The Aero ready one will need a 1GHz 32-bit or 64-bit processor, 1GB of system memory, 128MB of graphics memory, 40GB of hard drive capacity with 15GB free space, a DVD-ROM drive, audio output capabilities and Internet access."
Ridiculous? Hmmmmm.. -
#21.1 Posted by XerXis on 13 Jul 2006 - 17:44
- why ridiculous? are you going to go to the store and buy a 500mhz system tomorrow? every system bought the last 3-4 years is perfectly capable of running vista. i don't see a problem in that. I didn't expect my intel 486 pc bought in 1994 to be able to run windows 98 when it was released in 1997-1998. And i didn't hear people complaining about it at that time.
-
#21.2 Posted by Zxian on 13 Jul 2006 - 21:01
- Compare that to the typical system specs to run OSX decently... My friend has a G3 iBook that's pretty slow at loading most apps in OSX, but not much slower than a similar era computer running Windows XP.
One of the main things that people are forgetting with Vista is the fact that Microsoft must keep backwards compatibility as much as possible. Apple had a small enough market footprint that they had the option (and took it) to completely scrap all dealings with OS9. Microsoft could never justify completely dropping interoperability for XP and previous operating systems.
I've got an Athlon 1GHz with 512MB of RAM and a 32MB Geforce II graphics card. Vista Beta 2 runs just fine on it - albeit without Aero. Everything else is perfectly happy and runs smoothly.
-
#22 Posted by SniperX on 13 Jul 2006 - 14:36
- Is Microsoft going to delay Vista again? Oh come on, they've dropped enough hints this week. Or did you believe that Bill really was just saying that "If, by some slim, tiny, fractional chance we happen not to be ready, then hey, I'll happily delay it again." and Steve really was just saying that "Hey, we'll never see delays this long again." for their health. I think they call it dampening the final effect and trying to put a positive spin on it.
-
(1 reply)
#23 Posted by lbmouse on 13 Jul 2006 - 15:24
- Is Microsoft going to delay Windows Vista?
Does a bear sh*t in the woods?
-
(1 reply)
#24 Posted by dangel on 13 Jul 2006 - 15:54
- Not if he lives in a zoo..
-
#25 Posted by Buttus on 13 Jul 2006 - 21:58
- XP works great for me right now... I don't want to have to spend another $150-200 or whatever it's going to cost on a buggy OS... let them take another 2 years to fix it and get it at least mostly bug free...
-
#26 Posted by Tech001101 on 13 Jul 2006 - 22:36
- lately MS's latest releases has had one too many major bugs....it's no wonder they are a bit nervous with vista.
come'on MS get your Dev house in order.
Visual Studio 2005 has tons of bugs...on top of that trying uninstalling that sucker...
-
#27 Posted by hardgiant on 14 Jul 2006 - 01:23
- Love Office 2007.....Hate Vista, poorly designed, bloated, no real great ideas.
Vista Bad:
1. To bloated
2. To expensive
3. To many editions
4. To slow
5. To many good features dropped
6. To rushed to get it out the door
7. Explorer has no toolbars and still no file manager like OS X.
Vista Good:
1. Love the new Start menu
2. The new open save dialog boxes are ok but could have been better.
3. Symbolic links
4. Taking advantage of the newer GPU's.
-
#28 Posted by MadDog on 14 Jul 2006 - 01:32
- Quote -MacOS X is already a stable platform -- now running on Intel.
The first part of that is garbage. I just had my first intense work exposure to OS X while editing a company video. (I own a G4 PowerBook that I use for fun.) The PowerMac crashed more times in three days than my Windows XP SP2 box does in a month. I even had Apple's version of the BSOD while working in FinalCut Pro.
After actually using a Mac (outside of IM, e-mail and web browsing) I must say I'm not impressed with the performance -- especially with the price tag.
