Microsoft: Push the Windows Vista date back
Posted by Brad Wardell on 04 August 2006 - 17:16 · 69 comments & 62224 views
Earlier this week Neowin reported about the call from Longhorn Blogs for Microsoft to give Windows Vista more time. Yesterday WinSuperSite.com and WinCustomize.com put up their own views on whether Vista is ready which could be summed up as "No. God, no."
So what exactly is the situation with Windows Vista? What is the no-marketing spin truth of it? Here are the facts: Windows Vista is scheduled to be made available for corporate customers by the end of the year and be "Generally available" in January 2007. To make that date, Microsoft essentially has to "go gold" by the end of October. That means release candidates would start this month (August 2006). In theory, release candidates are supposed to be versions of Windows Vista that are believed to be ready to go and just need some final testing.
So where do things stand right now? Build 5472 went out a week ago. 5484 was given out earlier this week to selected beta testers. Most (okay all) of the beta testers we've talked to have said the same thing: It's not where it needs to be to make that date.
The problems include everything from general stability, networking issues, backward compatibility, unfinished features, unfinished APIs and more.
Paul Thurrott writes "Do I think that Microsoft will finalize Windows Vista by the end of October 25? Yes, but I also believe they will release a massive series of patches between October 2006 and January 2007 if they do arbitrarily hit their latest release promise because of issues that crop up after Vista gets shipped out to all those businesses that won't be installing it anyway."
The fear many in the industry have of this strategy is a repeat of the Windows ME debacle. The poor reception of Windows ME essentially killed it. An unfinished Windows Vista could result in an OS whose reputation never recovers. One can almost picture Dell and HP offering Windows XP as an alternative pre-loaded OS for years to come with Windows Vista essentially being shoved aside until the follow-on version of Windows ships.
As an OS, Windows Vista is a marvel. The problem isn't that the OS is bad, it is just that it needs time for some of the really ambitious features to be fully tested and integrated. Windows Vista delivers things like DirectX 10 (which is a big deal for game developers and be only available on Windows Vista), Windows Presentation Foundation, Windows Communication Foundation, a better UI, a composited desktop environment, better security and a lot more. Under the covers, Windows Vista is the most significant update to Windows since NT was introduced.
But if Windows Vista ships too early, none of those great new features will matter. All people will remember is that it was "buggy", "slow", "flakey", and "incompatible" and that reputation would long outlive the few extra months it would take to make sure Vista has the time to get it right.
Below are some links that go into more detail and their prescriptions.
View: Push Vista Back! View: Vista needs a beta 3 View: Is Vista Ready?
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
-
-
#1 Posted by kazzama on 04 Aug 2006 - 17:22
- Microsoft seems to be having alot of trouble with Vista
i hope they can just delay it a bit longer and make it worth while. I would hate another Windows ME incident
-
(3 replies)
#2 Posted by metalguy90 on 04 Aug 2006 - 17:24
- i agree with the people suggesting to wait.
Nothing like a buggy OS to be shipped out. Take your time, its only been 5 years. what another couple of months. You already missed the Holiday season deadline. -
#2.1 Posted by lodgepole on 04 Aug 2006 - 18:00
- completely agree. They already have bad PR on the release being pushed so why not wait the extra time and make sure it's reasonably stable.
-
#2.2 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 04 Aug 2006 - 18:18
- Exactly. They're clearly pushing it as it is and a bad OS will haunt them for years... I can certainly wait and it will give DirectX10 graphics cards time to permeate the market.
-
#2.3 Posted by Jugalator on 04 Aug 2006 - 20:40
- "They're clearly pushing it as it is and a bad OS will haunt them for years..."
Yes, there'd be no end to the "5 years and this??" comments, while if just adding a few months for the final touches and pure bug fixing could end up being some very well invested months for Microsoft's reputation. I don't think there's much time left, but just 2-3 months for serious polish could end up being very valuable.
You bring up a good point about DX10 too. Release Vista soon with doubtful release quality and missing DX10 cards, or wait for these cards and instead have complete "Vista PC" systems with DirectX 10 cards and a polished Windows Vista installed sold on release day? The choice would seem obvious and end up having a significant market impact this way, but there's of course the economy to think of for MS, otherwise I think it would be a no-brainer for them.
-
(1 reply)
#3 Posted by Lexcyn on 04 Aug 2006 - 17:25
- Releasing a buggy OS could hurt Microsoft more than another slip in the release date.
-
#3.1 Posted by Jugalator on 04 Aug 2006 - 20:32
- I agree; it's easy to forget a delayed OS if it's stable and nice at the release day. It's harder to forget distributing an OS in a business environment that could end up even be a step back from XP in some areas. I'm not sure how the RTM will end up like in terms of bugs and compatibility, but if there are serious problems, things could get pretty rough.
-
(2 replies)
#4 Posted by rev23dev on 04 Aug 2006 - 17:27
- i think until rc1 is released people should keep these kinds of opinions to themselves
-
#4.1 Posted by Hurmoth on 04 Aug 2006 - 17:32
- I think everyone is entitled to their opinion and can freely post it at Neowin as long as it doesn't go against the rules.
-
#4.2 Posted by rev23dev on 04 Aug 2006 - 17:40
- Quote - Hurmoth said @ #4.1I think everyone is entitled to their opinion and can freely post it at Neowin as long as it doesn't go against the rules.
i think you took that a little too literally. hence the smiley face.
i'll i'm saying is without rc1 it's really too hard to say.Quote -The poor reception of Windows ME essentially killed it.
people are already giving vista a bad buzz when it's just in BETA. see what i'm getting at?
-
(6 replies)
#5 Posted by Hurmoth on 04 Aug 2006 - 17:30
- What's sad is that Microsoft has spent at least five years on this operating system. Now don't get me wrong, just like any other major project there are always going to be problems, but Microsoft was spitting out OSes every two years and now it has been almost five years since XP came out. Another sad fact is that a lot of major new features that were going to be in Longhorn disappeared and now we have Vista--a XP SP3 on steroids if you will.
Personally, I am all for delaying it, the more delays the better it will be? Or maybe not. I have a feeling that Vista is a lost cause and we should stop worrying about it. Onto Vienna.
The views of Hurmoth (James Wimmer) do not necessarily reflect the views of Neowin or other staff members. -
#5.1 Posted by Jason on 04 Aug 2006 - 17:43
- Back when Microsoft were making an OS a year things were more simple as they still had the 9X OS in production. Now its NT based only things have become far more complex to develop.
They haven't spent 5 years continous on Longhorn / Vista as a lot of other projects have held up development time of Vista e.g Service Packs etc...
Also there are 3 things missing from Vista to my knowlege:
Monad but they never stated it was going to be in Vista.
WinFS I personally could never see this appearing as its too complex.
PC to PC sync?
Vista is showing continous improvement every build so eventually they will get it right but I would sooner have it completed properly than rushed and have a SP released shortly after to finish the job! -
#5.2 Posted by dagamer34 on 04 Aug 2006 - 18:30
- Quote - Jason said @ #5.1Back when Microsoft were making an OS a year things were more simple as they still had the 9X OS in production. Now its NT based only things have become far more complex to develop.
They haven't spent 5 years continous on Longhorn / Vista as a lot of other projects have held up development time of Vista e.g Service Packs etc...
Also there are 3 things missing from Vista to my knowlege:
Monad but they never stated it was going to be in Vista.
WinFS I personally could never see this appearing as its too complex.
PC to PC sync?
Vista is showing continous improvement every build so eventually they will get it right but I would sooner have it completed properly than rushed and have a SP released shortly after to finish the job!
Maybe that's true, but because of the disaster that was Windows ME, we got XP much sooner. The thing is that if Vista isn't a good enough OS, there are going to be OS programmers stuck on bringing it up to par with more fixes, delaying what Vienna might be. Or we Microsoft could just focus on getting Vienna out the door and we'd be stuck with an OS that's plagued with problems. Imagine being stuck with ME for 5 years, because there's no guarantee that Vienna would be done on time either. -
#5.3 Posted by lbmouse on 04 Aug 2006 - 20:04
- Quote - Hurmoth said @ #5Another sad fact is that a lot of major new features that were going to be in Longhorn disappeared and now we have Vista--a XP SP3 on steroids if you will.
I couldn't agree more... plus with the addition of embedded DRM, WGA, and other anti-end-user 'features', I'd like to tell Microsoft where they can *push* the Windows Vista. -
#5.4 Posted by Jugalator on 04 Aug 2006 - 20:28
- Quote -What's sad is that Microsoft has spent at least five years on this operating system. Now don't get me wrong, just like any other major project there are always going to be problems, but Microsoft was spitting out OSes every two years and now it has been almost five years since XP came out.
I agree; it must've been some quite nasty and frustrating 5 years at Microsoft.
The problem where they restarted on a new kernel base, taking away a TON of former work and giving us the Beta 1 looking to be almost from scratch (the infamous "train wreck", is starting to be more evident to me now. They've actually not worked on the right kernel and reduced vision for Vista ("Longhorn" was largely about something quite different than what we see now) since the development reset in around mid-2004. I think these 3 years of development is unfortunately the expectations of maturity and features we can have for this OS. What a waste... Imagine what a 5 year developed OS with no interruptions and paradigm shifts would've been like today. -
#5.5 Posted by brianshapiro on 04 Aug 2006 - 23:53
- i wish people would stop saying 'sp3' even if its 'on steroids'. i dont think you realize what a service pack is; even SP2 for XP had a lot more than a typical service pack. vista will have as much new as a typical major windows release [ie windows 98] or a typical OS release [tiger---and in fact vista will be on par if not better, is that really a SP]
well, the point is.. vista is disappointing compared to what was promised. but please these exaggerations are silly and not productive, because some people actually don't realize they are hyperbole. you can talk about the dissapointment in another way. -
#5.6 Posted by Octol on 05 Aug 2006 - 01:57
- "...Microsoft was spitting out OSes every two years and now it has been almost five years since XP came out."
"Spitting out" is right, and the result was a lot of crappy software – especially in the early years.
Until the release of Windows 2000, Microsoft's OS customers were essentially beta testers that were paying for testing privileges: an unethical business practice if ever there was one. On the other hand that unethical practice massively accelerated the development cycle, which was ultimately good for everyone. I've been one of those paying custestomers from the very beginning, and I'm not complaining.
In any event, Microsoft is now trying to get it right before getting it out, and that is the correct strategy. It isn't like everyone has to put up with a buggy, substandard POS like Windows 3.1 or Windows 95 while they wait for a better OS to be released. Windows XP is still a perfectly good OS, and having to continue using it while waiting for Vista to be truly complete is no real hardship for most of us.
I've taken both Vista and Longhorn Server around the block, and I'm not convinced that either of them are anywhere near ready for release. For quite some time now, I've thought that Vista's release date should be "when it's ready and not a minute sooner". That's still my opinion.
-
#6 Posted by Saadu on 04 Aug 2006 - 17:36
- If delayed it puts a long pause between major OS releases from MS. I dont see it as a bad thing. I mean my XP setup is running perfectly ok. Im just going for the eye candy.
-
#7 Posted by CrimsonRedMk on 04 Aug 2006 - 17:36
- I agree. Vista should not be pushed. It's August already, and an RC would be released, but from seeing Beta 2 and 5472, I don't think that an RC would be complete. I would push the date back as long as required, all I want is a quality and stable release.
-
(1 reply)
#8 Posted by scyphe on 04 Aug 2006 - 17:40
- This is a case of marketing vs development. Vista could use another 6 months of code crunching, but marketing have made so many promises that they still try to keep (for their own prestige and in the face of their customers) that they will ultimately make MS release Vista in a pre-finished state. It will be a rush to clean it up and fix the most obvious things to meet the october deadline which means a lot of REAL work is being pushed aside...
-
#8.1 Posted by lodgepole on 04 Aug 2006 - 18:04
- Marketing group needs to suck it up and let the product team more or less let them know when they're ready to ship. Again, I'd rather see the marketing folks go back to their partners (dell, hp, ibm, etc) and explain the delay than deliver something not ready for prime time.
-
#9 Posted by L3thal on 04 Aug 2006 - 17:46
- I say they should push it back. They missed the important holiday season already so now it doesn't matter when the release it.
-
#10 Posted by xploit1030 on 04 Aug 2006 - 17:55
- I think it really won't hurt them if they need to push it back. It is not like people aren't going to wait. What other option do they have realistically? Please don't take that as an opportunity to shout about a Linux desktop. If Vista turns out to be a dud then a possibility exists for a change-over but even then it would be unlikely.
-
#11 Posted by dp123 on 04 Aug 2006 - 17:58
- Check this out:
http://www.bloomberg.com/avp/avp.htm?T=def...aFrm69Re3Is.asf
This guy was mostly getting nailed on Zune, but Bernard Lo got him to firmly commit to a November launch and jumped all over it. It's hilarious seeing a financial reporter who actually knows what he's talking about nail this guy.
I can't wait to hear what Bernie says when/if it does slip.
-
(1 reply)
#12 Posted by PsykX on 04 Aug 2006 - 18:02
- That's what I thought and another frontpage article said it on Neowin too : Vista became too hard to develop.
If it isn't released by november/MAYBE december, companies don't care anymore if it's pushed back or not. Hell it'd be pushed back to november 2007 and companies would be happier. For users, it does matter, but oh well. What they should do is to update XP with maybe a service pack 3, maybe new features, etc. it would make us wait patiently a little. -
#12.1 Posted by Eclipse™ on 04 Aug 2006 - 20:32
- The problem with placating users by adding more features to XP as you suggested is that it would siphon development away from Vista, and we'd have to wait even longer. Ideally, Microsoft should concentrate completely on Vista right now, delay the release if they have to, refrain from adding any more superfluous features, and get everything they already have running smoothly. I don't see a problem with that.
-
#13 Posted by SniperX on 04 Aug 2006 - 18:08
- I hope the lesson learned from this really quite, even by MS standards, ridiculous episode is to keep the hype machine in a lower gear on future releases.
Don't sit saying it's going to include x, y, and z and then later on announce that won't be possible. Don't start even thinking dates, let alone announcing them until you are a bit more sure you can reach those targets.
Most of this nonsense could so easily have been avoided if they'd had a little less spin in the first place.
-
#14 Posted by mohan_168 on 04 Aug 2006 - 18:11
- They have already spent 5 years to make Vista till here. If they hurry to just meet their dead-line before completing the project and release it this year Vista will just meet an abrupt end.
So what does MS think ? Delay it by 6-7 months so that 5 years of working dont go down the drain ? Or release it this year and let it meet the fate of ME!
-
(2 replies)
#15 Posted by RAID 0 on 04 Aug 2006 - 18:20
- I hope some of the higher ups at Microsoft are listing to the developers... developers..developers..developers...developers...developers...developers...developers, (choke- gasp) and beta testers. Really, I could wait for Vista till this time next year if the wait meant Vista would be that much better. I'm happy with my XP boxes and my OS X machine. I see no need to rush a major change.
What I'd really like to see with Vista, is to COMPLETELY REMOVE SUPPORT FOR A FLOPPY DRIVE! Why, for the love of GOD do we still have this crap? The only thing I've used a floppy for in the past 5 years, is to install my RAID drivers during a Windows install. Do we still see ISA slots on a MB? What about VLB? Why force us to use a floppy to install RAID drivers? Why not a CD or DVD?
Regardless of what anyone says, I'm waiting for Vista SP1 before I make the switch. I'd advise everyone to do the same. We know the track record, why not use that to our advantage? -
#15.1 Posted by rev23dev on 04 Aug 2006 - 18:25
- they SHOULD be listening to the developers, but they put out one release on MSDN for every 6 beta tester releases. it's ridiculous.
-
#15.2 Posted by Ideas Man on 05 Aug 2006 - 01:22
- Quote - RAID 0 said @ #15What I'd really like to see with Vista, is to COMPLETELY REMOVE SUPPORT FOR A FLOPPY DRIVE! Why, for the love of GOD do we still have this crap? The only thing I've used a floppy for in the past 5 years, is to install my RAID drivers during a Windows install. Do we still see ISA slots on a MB? What about VLB? Why force us to use a floppy to install RAID drivers? Why not a CD or DVD?
Then don't buy a floppy drive and install it in your PC. I don't have one in mine, I only connected it to install the RAID drivers too, but disconnected it after that.
Plus, you haven't been forced to use a floppy drive to install RAID drivers for Vista for quite a while now, you can use CDs, DVDs or even flash drives! Then end is near, but remember, just because you don't use them (neither do I), doesn't mean someone doesn't out there and lets face it, they aren't exactly extinct like the ISA slot.
-
#16 Posted by ziggie216 on 04 Aug 2006 - 18:30
- and why is this news? :p
I dont mind that its pushed back some more as long as they can take care majority of the bugs before it's sold to the public... It's not XP life cycle is about to end..
-
(2 replies)
#17 Posted by Zhivago on 04 Aug 2006 - 18:31
- Quote -Paul Thurrott writes "Do I think that Microsoft will finalize Windows Vista by the end of October 25? Yes, but I also believe they will release a massive series of patches between October 2006 and January 2007 if they do arbitrarily hit their latest release promise because of issues that crop up after Vista gets shipped out to all those businesses that won't be installing it anyway."
There's no such thing as complete and finished software. Look at XP when it was first released and compare to what we have now. Damn it, somebody like Paul Thurrott should know this better. -
#17.1 Posted by Jugalator on 04 Aug 2006 - 20:21
- You're right in that no software is 100% "finished", especially not at RTM.
BUT, there are more truths to this as well:
1. MS needs to have it be very stable on by far the most systems, or it will look like a downgrade in stability and bugs compared to XP SP2. Yes, they need to compare to this, because that's what users are coming from, not the RTM XP.
2. You shouldn't compare to the XP release and find that to warrant another release like that, assuming you'd be striving to improve the releases instead of satisfying yourself with bad releases. The XP RTM with its problems was a mistake MS should have learnt from, not be satisfied if they repeat it. -
#17.2 Posted by ~*McoreD*~ on 05 Aug 2006 - 08:54
- That's right Jugalator. MS needs to have it be very stable on by far the most systems, or it will look like a downgrade in stability and bugs compared to XP SP2. Yes, they need to compare to this, because that's what users are coming from, not the RTM XP.
I remember in 2001, Windows XP Beta 2 was said to be stabler than Windows 2000 RTM! Windows XP had such good recognition. We never heard something like that in Vista.
-
(1 reply)
#18 Posted by fear_machine on 04 Aug 2006 - 18:41
- Vista is starting to look alot like duke nukem forever; maybe the two can ship together in some sort of package?
-
#19 Posted by Chugworth on 04 Aug 2006 - 18:45
- As many patches as they would have to put out, they would probably crash the new Windows Update program and/or alienate the 56k users 500Mb of updates.
-
#20 Posted by CrisCr0ss on 04 Aug 2006 - 19:28
- XP is working fine for me, and im sure for more than others. I Agree with Microsofts idea to push it back. I would rather much have a feature rich stable solid operating system then a rushed one. This was a good move by MSFT imo.
-
#21 Posted by Julius Caro on 04 Aug 2006 - 19:31
- What Microsoft should do is abort the vista release. All the bad press it's getting before its release has already killed vista imo. Vista is not ready to be released, and neither the people wants vista. It's simple, don't release. They should take some time, re-name the thing and try again, or something... to make it look like it's different
-
(1 reply)
#22 Posted by jwjw1 on 04 Aug 2006 - 19:37
- Why shouldn't MS release it...Im sure they have their 'patch' team working overtime for the next weeks 21 patch release...then working overtime for the 2nd weeks 18 patches...it common pratice for MS.
-
#23 Posted by RX78GP02A on 04 Aug 2006 - 20:00
- only if this world wasn't as money driven as it is...
MSFT is backed against the wall... either delay it and get a better OS or not risk their stock from going any lower...
i think ms should delay again, but wall street wouldn't be happy about any new delays
-
#24 Posted by Jugalator on 04 Aug 2006 - 20:15
- It's no good when their internal testers have problems with the timeline.
Because these are the guys that will help ensure the product's ultimate stability, not counting service packs etc released months later.
Unfortunately, I think it's both too late, and MS having delayed it too much, that they won't want to do it anymore.
-
#25 Posted by lylesback2 on 04 Aug 2006 - 20:37
- good article
Microsoft should see the big picture. A rushed OS can result in a failure like Windows ME, being the worst operating system released by Microsoft as a final product.
I say, let Microsoft take there time on Vista, and ship a good complete product. I would rather critics have something good to say, and let Vista be a huge success for Microsoft, rather then a disaster and have people bashing it on a daily basis.
-
#26 Posted by ryanfourtwenty on 04 Aug 2006 - 21:12
- REEAAAAAAAAAAALLLY ya dont say....
-
#27 Posted by Epimetheus on 04 Aug 2006 - 21:32
- Operating systems should get out of the way.
-
(1 reply)
#28 Posted by bid1 on 04 Aug 2006 - 21:41
- Microsoft could take until the end of time and, just like history shows, they will never get it right. The first OS I've ever used was DOS 6.22 and nothing much changed since. Same lame excuses over and over ..
My beef with Vista (Other than the goofy name- Windows V for Vulnerable? ) is that it is too bulky (6Gb for a fresh install) and it does not add much to the table. I can get everything that Vista promises to deliver using third party apps out there TODAY.
I believe that I am going straight to Ubuntu after Win2k (which in my opinion is the best OS they ever came up with). -
#28.1 Posted by PCyr on 05 Aug 2006 - 04:03
- Do you only know Vista by it's name?
It's been a while since I posted this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_windows_vista
Notice how the header says "This article is becoming very long. Please consider transferring content to subtopic articles where appropriate."
-
#29 Posted by Shadrack on 04 Aug 2006 - 21:49
- Even if it does come out this year, all corporate IT will give themselves a huge pat on the back if they wait for SP1 to arrive sometime at the end of 2007 beginning of 2008 (my best guess).
-
(1 reply)
#30 Posted by Chicane-UK on 04 Aug 2006 - 22:11
- I'm just intrigued to see how this all pans out. Really haven't seen anything like this in a long time.. as much as I love Apple stuff and as much as I want to move over to OSX as soon as I can, obviously it matters for a giant like Microsoft to continue to do really well..
Thing is I just don't see where they go from here. Delay it (and take serious flack from companies like Dell who want to sell new machines with a new OS - and not to mention their shareholders, etc) or get it out the door in what sounds like seriously unfit shape? I'm sure some managers there are having some serious sleepless nights.. and i'm sure there will be quite a lot of restructuring once Vista is finally out of the door... -
#30.1 Posted by dagamer34 on 04 Aug 2006 - 23:52
- Nah, OEMs like Dell aren't going to be mad if Microsoft delays Vista again. They are already going to miss the Back-2-School and Christmas 2006 buying seasons, so even a delay of 6 months wouldn't really matter much.
As for stockholders, delaying Vista and releasing a decent OS is 100 times better than releasing Vista "on-time" and making another Windows Me senario. Besides, people aren't going to want to buy the OS until they get SP1 anyway if that happens.
And why on earth is Microsoft going to release Vista to business customers in October??!?!? That's crazy! There are no real drivers, and heck, half of businesses are still using Windows 2000, even when it's got a "Built for Windows XP sticker " slapped on it. I wish soeone would get a clue.
-
#31 Posted by Blackice on 04 Aug 2006 - 22:18
- Really, I would say the two large problems are UAC and the UI. The UI needs serious work done to it. So long as we still have the font install dialog from Windows 3.1, I will hold that view.
-
#32 Posted by chimera963 on 04 Aug 2006 - 22:33
- Another delay? Funny, lol. Oh well, atleast it'll be better.
-
#33 Posted by mysticalone on 04 Aug 2006 - 22:50
- They should push it back, and try to put features in that they have dropped. I'd be more happier knowing they tweaked Vista and may have a chance of bringing back dropped features.
-
(2 replies)
#34 Posted by brianshapiro on 04 Aug 2006 - 23:58
- Paul Thurrott's comments are really ridiculous. I'm using Vista beta 2, and I run into bugs all the time, but they're not a big deal [maybe i don't get as violently frustrated as Paul], and its very possible to fix these before shipping date. Not only have new builds been released since the beta, but there are code changes that haven't even been incorporated into current builds. My impression of Paul's hysteric reaction is really summed up in this comment of his:
"Actually, I think it could be. I think that Microsoft will actually make this date, and as I write these words I'm acutely aware that Microsoft will announce another delay within minutes of its publication if only to discredit me."
geeps. did he mean this to be tounge-in-cheek.. who knows, but its still a strange joke to make. does he joke about something similar happening before? -
#34.1 Posted by Xavien on 05 Aug 2006 - 00:32
- I dont mind bugs, its the performance of vista that kills me, running 5476 and it still lags quite excessively and the DWM is no-where near as efficent as Windows XP's theming engine (it takes up more RAM and is still not as fast).
-
#34.2 Posted by Ideas Man on 05 Aug 2006 - 01:34
- Yes, Paul Thurrott is a complete d!ckhead. Go and read his article on WGA where he moans and whines like a little sh!t because he installed WGA on his MCE virtual machine and it flagged it as being illegal. He then went on to blame Microsoft because it surely wasn't his fault, his fancy MSDN subscription entitled him to it and it must be legal. Then some people at Microsoft went and assisted him to try and find the cause of the problems because lets face it, he's a moron who knows next to nothing about computers anyway and it turns out that computer genius thurrott was infact running a pirated version of Windows MCE.
Ain't it funny how WGA detected it was pirated? He then went on to say that he bought the copy off the Internet for some reason and that all it came with was a CD and a few pages or something, obviously an illegal copy, but he failed to mention that, and obviously not too smart if he couldn't tell the difference between a genuine Microsoft product with all the packaging and pretty things on the disc and his obviously pirated copy.
-
#35 Posted by Xavien on 05 Aug 2006 - 00:30
- Microsoft, meet rock and hard place.
Seriously, microsoft is damned if they do and damned if they dont. Delay and get berated by the press for taking so long, dont delay and get berated by the press for eternity for releasing Windows ME mk II.
Its one of those rare times where i feel sorry for microsoft, its like a beetle on its back struggling to turn over.
-
#36 Posted by Spik3balloon on 05 Aug 2006 - 00:55
- Microsoft might as well finish off the features they scrapped, and release Vista next holiday season as a finished, working, functional product.
-
#37 Posted by rypaintD on 05 Aug 2006 - 01:05
- Estimated time for Vista release: I'll get it for my 50 year old children. (I'm 13)
-
#38 Posted by Matt T on 05 Aug 2006 - 03:07
- I'm honestly starting to think that a 2008 release for Vista isn't entirely unfeasible.
-
#39 Posted by bilemke on 05 Aug 2006 - 06:34
- To start, I loved teh comparison/reference to Windows ME.. I remember a friend (a year older then me) working at Staples (or some place like it) while I was in my last year of high school.. I think that was then, so far back.. Anyway, a couple larger companies were releasing machine with Windows ME.. Then, some people actually started to request Windows 98 SE or Windows 2000 over having Windows ME preinstalled. These werent even corporate users.. Home users, wanting an older product (in both cases)..
While I see an ocasional reference to a SP2 beta for Windows 2003, I dont see much happening for XP.. Yeah, it is 5 years old.. Look how many post sp2 hotfixes (the official, public release ones, no even counting many that have to be directly requested from Micrsoft if they are needed).. It is time for SP3.. Instead.. Look, another beta of Vista.. Another delay of the Vista release date..
If something like what happened with Windows ME happens with Vista... Hmm.. XP is going to get interesting.. I wonder if we will see a service pack for XP come out before Vista, or for that matter, Vista SP1..
Dont get me wrong, I am excited about Vista, it might finally be more of a change then 98 SE was to 98.. Or, XP was to 2000..
-
#40 Posted by Sheppard on 05 Aug 2006 - 07:05
- Looks like its time to get into Linux then, sick of excuses and delays, i dont want a half assed operating system.
-
#41 Posted by Guol on 05 Aug 2006 - 07:18
- Won't kill me if there's a further delay. I mean as long as the finished product is ace, that's all that matters
-
#42 Posted by Destruction.Thrash on 05 Aug 2006 - 13:14
- This should just join Duke Nukem Forever in the "When Its Done" category.
But personally I'm not too bothered about vista in no rush to get it.
-
#43 Posted by Fr@nKy on 05 Aug 2006 - 14:30
- XP does it's job for now! Just hold on Vista and make it what XP should have been from the begginig instead of an Windows Millenium 2.0 I hope Vista gets also a little more lightwight my computer needs to run it smoothly till I get a new one next summer (with Vista I guess )
-
#44 Posted by Jolo on 05 Aug 2006 - 16:44
- Patchou, Messenger Plus! creator, adds to the people
http://www.msghelp.net/showthread.php?tid=64488
-
#45 Posted by jma on 07 Aug 2006 - 17:52
- I don't think what happened with Windows ME could happen with Vista, especially since Me was just an upgrade from Windows 98, but not nearly as good as Windows 2000 (aka NT 5). So, I don't think Microsoft will have the trouble with Vista that it had with Me. Besides, I think that Microsoft is figuring on Vista being the standard OS from them for the next 10 years, right? OEMs will have to jump on board with it.
But I do agree that they should take their time with it and make it available for testing as much as possible to work out the bugs. I've run CTP July 2006 and it still has some glitches in it.
