Months Before Launch, Partners Say Vista RC1 Not Ready

#1 redwingsmonk on 05 Sep 2006 - 23:50

Yep! Lets all take a Fukitol 1000 mg. and buy a Mac!

(2 replies) #2 ironsight2000 on 05 Sep 2006 - 23:51

another 8 months delay

#2.1 freeeekyyy on 05 Sep 2006 - 23:58

Quote - ironsight2000 said @ #2

another 8 months delay

According to the article, if you actually read it, they expect no dealy on the retail release. AAll it says is expect a possible delay on the enterprise release until december of 06, instead of november of 06.

#2.2 ironsight2000 on 06 Sep 2006 - 00:25

Quote - freeeekyyy said @ #2.1

Quote - ironsight2000 said @ #2

another 8 months delay

According to the article, if you actually read it, they expect no dealy on the retail release. AAll it says is expect a possible delay on the enterprise release until december of 06, instead of november of 06.

its a joke its been for ever for the realise and they are still having trouble

#3 Rodrigo on 05 Sep 2006 - 23:58

Not that companies buy Windows right when it's released.

But I guess it's like every other Microsoft OS when it gets released.

So lets just wait and see what happens after 6 months of the release date for us (July - August).

(2 replies) #4 Aleck79 on 05 Sep 2006 - 23:59

$400 bucks for the Ultimate version is insane...what makes it so much better than the standard version to justify the extra $$$?

#4.1 Trong on 06 Sep 2006 - 00:05

It has all of the business features. And whatever else I didn't read.

#4.2 kaiwai on 06 Sep 2006 - 04:26

Quote - Trong said @ #4.1

It has all of the business features. And whatever else I didn't read.

Ultimate basically has everything - however, on a website I read (could have been Winformant), there is "Web services" apparently included with Windows Ultimate, which begs to question, what are these 'web services' which they speak of; and are they good enough to justify the cost.

Oh, and with that said, its almosta certaintity, Dell will jump onboard and offer 'free upgrade to Ultimate' on their machines.

(4 replies) #5 macro on 06 Sep 2006 - 00:03

I'm all for another delay, get it right or don't do it at all. Then again I'm not a shareholder heh.

#5.1 Sp3ctranova on 06 Sep 2006 - 00:13

Quote - macro said @ #5

I'm all for another delay, get it right or don't do it at all. Then again I'm not a shareholder heh.

my thoughts exactly.

#5.2 freeeekyyy on 06 Sep 2006 - 00:15

Quote - macro said @ #5

I'm all for another delay, get it right or don't do it at all. Then again I'm not a shareholder heh.

What reason is there to believe it's not getting done right?

#5.3 Sp3ctranova on 06 Sep 2006 - 00:29

Quote - freeeekyyy said @ #5.2

Quote - macro said @ #5

I'm all for another delay, get it right or don't do it at all. Then again I'm not a shareholder heh.

What reason is there to believe it's not getting done right?

Well, if people are saying that it's not quite ready, then it should be delayed a few more months so that they can get it right. Get it right meaning put out an excellent final product as opposed to a rushed and mediocre final product.

#5.4 freeeekyyy on 06 Sep 2006 - 00:32

Quote - Sp3ctranova said @ #5.3

Quote - freeeekyyy said @ #5.2

Quote - macro said @ #5

I'm all for another delay, get it right or don't do it at all. Then again I'm not a shareholder heh.

What reason is there to believe it's not getting done right?

Well, if people are saying that it's not quite ready, then it should be delayed a few more months so that they can get it right. Get it right meaning put out an excellent final product as opposed to a rushed and mediocre final product.

If you actually read the asrticle, they say that the code moist certainly is ready, or close to it. This only concerns a november release of the enterprise version, and says nothing about adelay in the retail release.

#6 Macsen on 06 Sep 2006 - 00:19

Ultimate has everything the other versions have... but it still seems pricey to me...

(4 replies) #7 Aleck79 on 06 Sep 2006 - 00:47

Bring on RC2!

Last edited by Aleck79 on 06 Sep 2006 - 01:11

#7.1 Smigit on 06 Sep 2006 - 00:58

Please dont use large font's, its really annoying and never justified.

#7.2 dw2003 on 06 Sep 2006 - 03:51

^ Actually I prefer left alignment

#7.3 CHOWman on 06 Sep 2006 - 08:00

I prefer centred.

#7.4 lbmouse on 06 Sep 2006 - 14:50

Bring on SP2. That's when the IT guys at my company will start trusting Vista.

(4 replies) #8 reidtheweed01 on 06 Sep 2006 - 00:54

I think the majority of people only need the upgrades. For some reason people are stuck on the price of the full version, when odds are 75% wont even need the full disc. So paying $159 for the home premium which is all most people need except for the uber nerds who want to say they have it. People need to realize this is something you are going be using for the most part everyday for at least an hour or two for the next 4-5 years. So paying $150 isnt not too much. But of course buying a few new games for your xbox360 or ps3(**** for the counsle itself) and paying the same for those is a good buy, on something which you wont even come close to using as much as you do your computer.

#8.1 Smigit on 06 Sep 2006 - 01:01

exactly. And new systems which is when most casual users upgrade will of course get the OEM license which is likely to be cheaper than the upgrade editions. Really the 2 prices that I'd be concerned with are OEM and Upgrade as I'm sure those two categories cater for the majority of users. Retail has never been the right option of obtaining Windows (and no, I'm not implying piracy either).

#8.2 Darkinspiration on 06 Sep 2006 - 01:21

True but again. buying oem is only legit if you buy hardware. Oem can only be used on one pc. If you fry it well...

Retail and upgrade are a lot more flexible. Not that this justify the price.

Really the retail version should come with two licence at that price it ULTIMATE for god sake.

Yet piracy is still free, how do they expect to convince the pirate to go legit? increase the price of the software?

#8.3 BBinder on 06 Sep 2006 - 07:23

In the almighty UK you can actaully buy Windows OEM without having to buy any hardware with it if you shop at ebuyer.co.uk

I Do believe MS did change there mind to allow sales without hardware but alot of stores havent caught on about this and still require you to buy hardware

#8.4 Unplugged on 06 Sep 2006 - 09:36

You can buy OEM if your a "System Builder" Microsoft never actually defined any limits on that or what you need to do to be classed as a "System Builder" so your allowed to buy it as long as your installing it on a new or old Pc yuo intend to sell.

#9 jimbo11883 on 06 Sep 2006 - 01:42

Why can't they just hold off until christmas? It would be better off by then.

(3 replies) #10 MGS3-SS on 06 Sep 2006 - 02:20

Thats it, I'm moving to Mac. Can't stand all the delays Microsoft had and probably will give before Vista launches.

#10.1 RootWind on 06 Sep 2006 - 02:33

Really, what compelling reason was there in Vista that was going to stop you from switching to the Apple hardware-software combo? Were you going to go Dell if Vista had no delay?

#10.2 Octol on 06 Sep 2006 - 03:30

"Thats it, I'm moving to Mac."

Right on, Bro! Me, I'm moving to Etch-a-Sketch! They got a great upgrade price!

#10.3 AdamLC on 06 Sep 2006 - 08:41

Quote - Octol said @ #10.2

"Thats it, I'm moving to Mac."

Right on, Bro! Me, I'm moving to Etch-a-Sketch! They got a great upgrade price!

Nice one

I dont see what the price problem is really. As most some people said above most people only need the upgrade, nothing else and its not like people will need all the features of ultimate anyway

(5 replies) #11 nihilistphx on 06 Sep 2006 - 02:46

Personally, as I have stated before, I am all for them taking all the time in the world to make Vista something worth upgrading to. As I see it right now, Windows XP works really well for me and I have little to no desire to upgrade. Businesses rarely jump on the new OS bandwagon, heck the company I work for only upgraded from Windows 2000 to Windows XP a month ago, why not get it right and reduce the need for a SP1?

#11.1 mayamaniac on 06 Sep 2006 - 03:33

I disagree. I think Vista should be out as soon as possible. There's a chance that it might just suck, but what OS isn't unstable on initial release (OSX included)? But just because Vista is out does not mean you have to buy it and install it. You can wait for SP1 for Vista a year later, that will be "something worth upgrading to". My point is, the sooner Vista is out, the more time it allows third party software developers and hardware manufacturers to create softwares and drivers that not only are compatible with Vista, but take advantage of Vista new featuers. And by the time SP1 is out , maybe a year from relelase, we'll have a stable Vista with more software and hardware support.

#11.2 nihilistphx on 06 Sep 2006 - 04:17

I agree, third party software developers and hardware manufacturers will have more time to produce compatible apps and drivers. My problem with Vista is there is not enough of a pull factor to make me upgrade from Windows XP. A good, stable, feature rich OS would be enough for me to push me from Windows XP. I am saying that they should take their time to make it as near perfect as they can, get it right the first time, to push me from Windows XP. Though, we have yet to see the final product so my opinion, and just an opinion, is that I will wait until there is enough of a pull factor.

#11.3 kaiwai on 06 Sep 2006 - 04:29

Quote - mayamaniac said @ #11.1

I disagree. I think Vista should be out as soon as possible. There's a chance that it might just suck, but what OS isn't unstable on initial release (OSX included)? But just because Vista is out does not mean you have to buy it and install it. You can wait for SP1 for Vista a year later, that will be "something worth upgrading to". My point is, the sooner Vista is out, the more time it allows third party software developers and hardware manufacturers to create softwares and drivers that not only are compatible with Vista, but take advantage of Vista new featuers. And by the time SP1 is out , maybe a year from relelase, we'll have a stable Vista with more software and hardware support.

Why wait till Windows Vista is released? there is nothing stopping vendors from releasing Windows Vista compatible applications NOW if they so wish.

The features that are in Windows Vista are in Windows XP - assuming they'll stick with win32 isntead of migrating to .NET 3.0 + XAML.

#11.4 Jugalator on 06 Sep 2006 - 08:02

Quote -

The features that are in Windows Vista are in Windows XP - assuming they'll stick with win32 isntead of migrating to .NET 3.0 + XAML.

Windows XP will have .NET 3.0 (and XAML) too when it's done (which would be when Vista is done), and before it's done, one can download it as a prerelease version.

For end-users wishing to run .NET 3.0 apps:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...;displaylang=en

And for developers wishing to make .NET 3.0 apps:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...;displaylang=en
(the naming of this one is a bit confusing as it'll run just fine on Windows XP SP2 and Server 2003)

#11.5 dangel on 06 Sep 2006 - 08:41

Quote - kaiwai said @ #11.3

Quote - mayamaniac said @ #11.1

I disagree. I think Vista should be out as soon as possible. There's a chance that it might just suck, but what OS isn't unstable on initial release (OSX included)? But just because Vista is out does not mean you have to buy it and install it. You can wait for SP1 for Vista a year later, that will be "something worth upgrading to". My point is, the sooner Vista is out, the more time it allows third party software developers and hardware manufacturers to create softwares and drivers that not only are compatible with Vista, but take advantage of Vista new featuers. And by the time SP1 is out , maybe a year from relelase, we'll have a stable Vista with more software and hardware support.

Why wait till Windows Vista is released? there is nothing stopping vendors from releasing Windows Vista compatible applications NOW if they so wish.

The features that are in Windows Vista are in Windows XP - assuming they'll stick with win32 isntead of migrating to .NET 3.0 + XAML.

Well for our Apps (Win32) there are quite a few problems under the Pre-RC1 Aug CTP build that i'm not at all certain are our own doing. It's (mostly) pointless to port apps to a beta OS when so much can (and will) change before release.

#12 eilegz on 06 Sep 2006 - 04:52

well overpriced but i bet that pirates would get it the first day

#13 NinjaGinger on 06 Sep 2006 - 09:00

Ive found to much software is not compatable or just does not work. Silly I think. I will wait at least a year to see what happens with third party software before even considering it, unless there is a rush to bring out versions that work with it. For example, sony soft, eg. soundforge, acid etc wants .net 1 but as its not in Vista, they wont even install and the PC I have it on does not have net access, so as far as Im concerned it's a no no.

#14 Julius Caro on 06 Sep 2006 - 09:35

I wouldn't mind another delay if they get things right. Vista is fine, but the whole thing needs a "reorganization".

#15 PGHammer on 07 Sep 2006 - 05:54

The biggest problem is one that was faced with the much larger (and more critical in the corporate landscape) upgrade from NT4 to Windows 2000: the software developers largely stalled on releasing compatible applications. In the case of Windows Vista, the stall has started once again. This time, however, I refuse to buy into it: if an ISV doesn't have a Windows Vista-ready application, they won't get my continued business. Period. Full stop. The same applies to the IHV community: if you aren't ready, you lose a sale. These two groups had more *lead time* than the rest of us, and I won't reward their stall tactics.

Neowin.net