Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 28th Jul 2006 20:24 UTC, submitted by snds24
Windows Microsoft shares fell on Thursday after it declined to dampen rumours that its new Windows Vista operating system might face fresh delays. Its shares closed down 2% after a Microsoft executive appeared to avoid confirming the current January 2007 Vista release data for consumers. Instead, Microsoft's Kevin Johnson said Vista would be shipped "when it is available".
Order by: Score:
2007
by junior on Fri 28th Jul 2006 20:56 UTC
junior
Member since:
2005-07-07

It's better that they take their time to release a quality product, than to rush a buggy POS out the door.

HA! I said it first

Reply Score: 5

RE: 2007
by SlackerJack on Fri 28th Jul 2006 22:03 UTC in reply to "2007"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

Ohhh, so thats the excues is it, nothing to do with making people wait for a better product then?

Maybe they should follow Linux way and say "It will be done when it's done"

Edited 2006-07-28 22:04

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: 2007
by junior on Fri 28th Jul 2006 22:23 UTC in reply to "RE: 2007"
junior Member since:
2005-07-07

nothing to do with making people wait for a better product then?

Yes, that's basically what I said.

Maybe they should follow Linux way and say "It will be done when it's done"

Yes, that's basically what Johnson said.

Anyway, I was just being silly. I don't give a hoot whether Vista will be released tomorrow or not at all ever.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: 2007
by Barnabyh on Sat 29th Jul 2006 00:00 UTC in reply to "RE: 2007"
Barnabyh Member since:
2006-02-06

It's Debian GNU/Linux that's 'done when it's done' more than linux in general.
Just look at Novell and Redhat, I'm sure they got their deadlines and targets.

MS would be well advised to become more like that, but I still won't use Vista unless forced to at work. But that's not likely with the cheapskate council still running '95 with Novell desktop and Netscape 4.5 - ha. Bet none of you thought any larger organisation that takes itself seriously would still be using such old cr*p. But then - it's social services.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: 2007
by kaiwai on Sat 29th Jul 2006 06:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 2007"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

It's Debian GNU/Linux that's 'done when it's done' more than linux in general.
Just look at Novell and Redhat, I'm sure they got their deadlines and targets.

MS would be well advised to become more like that, but I still won't use Vista unless forced to at work. But that's not likely with the cheapskate council still running '95 with Novell desktop and Netscape 4.5 - ha. Bet none of you thought any larger organisation that takes itself seriously would still be using such old cr*p. But then - it's social services.


Well, I agree, they do need to adopt the Debian philosophy of 'its done when it is done' - they (Microsoft) need to stop giving release dates, and simply say, "2007 is the release date".

There is NO urgency for Windows Vista; it isn't as though there are major things missing from Windows XP; it already supports all the latest hardware, its well supported - personally, keep pumping out the service packs, keep testing the Vista builds and god forbid, if it takes till April/May or even June to get it released, then so be it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: 2007
by aent on Sat 29th Jul 2006 00:08 UTC in reply to "RE: 2007"
aent Member since:
2006-01-25

Yeah, Gnome follows a strict 6 month release schedule.

The key is you can't combine feature-based releases with time-based releases. You have to choose one or the other. A feature based release can't have a set time, especially in open source, as you don't know when you and other developers are going to have time to complete and perfect all of the features. Time based releases (which may have feature targets, but no guarantees) usually work out well because all of the features need to be in before a certain date, where then its concentrated on fixing bugs.

Reply Score: 4

devtty
Member since:
2006-04-02

if Windows Live Messenger is any indication, Vista would be a slow pig and resource hog.

Reply Score: 2

suryad Member since:
2005-07-09

I do not know why the above post got modded down. Is this a new policy for people who are stating the obvious to get modded down?

I mean take a look at Office 2007. While all those ribbons and new features are great, have you seen the size of the download for the betas? Outlook is over 200 MB!!! OUTLOOK!!! IT IS JUST AN EMAIL APP! Yeesh! Vista is going to be more of the same.

There is honestly no reason to upgrade to Vista other than DX 10, its network stack and the kernel and memory improvements to handle resources (memory and cpu) better, and the feature where you do not have to restart after every update. Couldn't Microsoft have just added all that to XP in a big service pack? Honestly I think that would have been a better investment on the part of Microsoft and that would have given the other programmers enough time in the meantime to get an all new OS ready based on the Singularity kernel and if that is too far fetched then that could have given Microsoft more time to get a polished OS released on time.

Reply Score: 3

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

He's comparing a web based service which will be slow by nature to a product which runs natively on the system. That's not logical.

Applications are getting bigger but so are harddrives and the speed at which one can be read. Hardware is simply evolving imho.

I agree with you on some parts but Vista would probably have been a clean slate where they could break more things and implement the DWM and cleaner versions of what they wanted.

Vista is basically an XP upgrade and it's nothing major compared to what will probably be released in Vienna. I'd call it more something to keep customers busy. It does offer some nifty improvements but nothing completely earth shattering.

Reply Score: 1

devtty Member since:
2006-04-02

"He's comparing a web based service which will be slow by nature to a product which runs natively on the system. That's not logical. "

Windows Live Messenger is a 15MB download, and my original comments are based on my personal opinion.

As a user, slow is slow, what is the reason behind the slowness? I might not care.

"Applications are getting bigger but so are harddrives and the speed at which one can be read. Hardware is simply evolving imho. "

Most hard drives still spin at 7200 RPM, despite of SATA 150, SATA 300 or whatever interface.

Reply Score: 4

PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

not defending the indefensible size of some things, but as capacity increases, peak sequential read rates increase too (more data is passing under that head at 7200 rpm). Random access time is still bad though. (There was a recent article about this with respect to Ext3).

Reply Score: 1

suryad Member since:
2005-07-09

Hardware is evolving I agree but programmers are becoming lazy. What happened to the good old days when applications were so small and fast and only did what they were supposed to do quick and fast?! Wait that sounds amazingly familiar...oh yes the *NIX operating systems! Their kernel might be getting bloated but it still follows the same design principle and look at how great it works. Honestly Microsoft needs to be taking a close look at open source software.

I use a whole lot of open source software and I dotn even bother with the versions that have installers. I just download the zip and extract them and the applications are good to go. No adding entries into the registry etc etc. Microsoft needs to take a closer harder look at what they are doing. They have not got the basics right yet they are piling more and more features and increasing the resource usage but to what gain?

Oh and before people flame me for saying I am anti-Microsoft, I use Windows XP Professional. I use it because I am most comfortable using it and because most software I use is only available for this operating system. That said, I think because I run a tight ship on my machine and I tinker around with it, the deficiencies of this OS becomes quite glaring to me.

/rant

Reply Score: 0

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I agree they are becoming lazy, it's still however hard to judge what is the factor to the large program sizes..laziness or more ability to do something? I mean I still remember when programs were insanely small..compared to today these would seem like beasts. I think the problem isn't as much in the kernel as opposed to the applications driving it. Microsoft should be looking at OSS but more for the community of developers and development process as opposed to how they should actually be programming their products.

I also agree the whole registry thing is a mess but I disagree that the lack of a standard installation interface across all distros is lacking in Linux. Once they set a standard for these things that is accepted they can join together and fight Microsoft as a whole..not as individual distros.

I think the more and more features are because of their audience, Microsoft targets all home users which rather have things in their face as opposed to hidden with something like a shortcut.

For example in Office I use all sorts of shortcuts (Ctrl+S, etc.. those kinds of things) but you see my mom going through the menus manually, something that I as someone good with computers wouldn't do but the average person would.

I don't think your anti Microsoft and you bring up some great points.

Reply Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Regarding the registry, there was a good video on channel 9 which takled the problems with the registry; as one of the architects of it said, it isn't necesssarily the design or the idea of the registry that causes the problem but how developers interact with it, and on occasions, have a tendency to go overbuoard in its use of it (as well as poorly removing registry entries when uninstalling their said application).

Regarding the 'lazineness of the developers' - Microsoft has always maintained (and Joel on Software has confirmed it) that Microsoft developers software for the *next* generation of hardware, not yesturdays; but thats no different to GNOME or KDE - I mean, if they all sat around worrying as to whether the software ran adequately on a P233Mhz computer with 32MB of ram and 850MB hard disk, none of the features we see today would be able to get implemented, no matter how 'efficient' their coding methods are.

Reply Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I do not know why the above post got modded down. Is this a new policy for people who are stating the obvious to get modded down?

Flame bait, provocative replies are what gets modded down; he can have an opinion on a product and how it is lacking, just actually use some evidence and/or examples to back up what he says.

If Windows Live Messenger is slow and bloated; provide evidence such as "Windows Messenger Live, with 50 active online contacts consumes 40MB, however, compared to the messenger Foobah IM, that only uses 23MB, and compared to the previous release of Windows MSN Messenger, the memory usage has almost doubled".

That would be a coherient conversation piece, raising the possible issues with the said product, simply screaming that something sucks, memory hog or bloated is merely showing a level of immaturity via the the fact that it was nothing more than a quick statement of opinion rather than a coherient argument to back up his position on the matter.

I mean take a look at Office 2007. While all those ribbons and new features are great, have you seen the size of the download for the betas? Outlook is over 200 MB!!! OUTLOOK!!! IT IS JUST AN EMAIL APP! Yeesh! Vista is going to be more of the same.

Microsoft Outlook is more than just an email package; how is that any different to the Lotus Notes download which normally weighs in at around 90MB for the full download (not just client)? how about comparing that to, for example, the different components that make up Kontact.

Yes, it is a 200MB download, but also includes, as well as enterprise related features, a large number of SHARED libraries which all the other parts of Microsoft ALSO rely on as well; if you downloaded each version individually, then downloaded the Office 2007 as a whole you'll find that there would be 100mb's difference between the download sizes.

There is honestly no reason to upgrade to Vista other than DX 10, its network stack and the kernel and memory improvements to handle resources (memory and cpu) better, and the feature where you do not have to restart after every update. Couldn't Microsoft have just added all that to XP in a big service pack? Honestly I think that would have been a better investment on the part of Microsoft and that would have given the other programmers enough time in the meantime to get an all new OS ready based on the Singularity kernel and if that is too far fetched then that could have given Microsoft more time to get a polished OS released on time.

Considering that there is a new manager; the one who ran Office - one of the more successful, in terms of profitability and product quality, divisions of Microsoft, he is now incharge of Microsoft Windows division; and I'll bet my bottom dollar he's had to wage war.

One has to remember, the Microsoft company culture is VERY different to that of Sun or Apple; if you want something done in Microsoft, you have to be willing to fight upper management to get the resources and the power to do so; and from the position change from management so far, it seems that the new manager is getting his way; no longer are they talking about fixed dates, they're no longer promising to many things; its a gentle set down to reality for customers and Microsoft; to move away from this over ambicious target and instead sit back and be realistic.

They've realised that they've bitten off more than they can chew, but the problem was made worse by having an unrealistic time table to stick to, and like I said, with the change recently, the new manager seems to have told upper management to let him handle it; don't interfer; if he has made a decision, no one should challenge.

Windows Vista will probably be released at around Februrary/March possibly; what will be interesting is whether it actyually delivers on promises and developers do jump on the bandwagon in terms of provind 'Vista Optimised" applications that work out of the box; lets hope that third party developers are testing their applications NOW rather than leaving it to the last minute.

ps. Oh, and it appears that Microsoft Office 2007 is now using Winforms for its GUI kit; lets hope that Microsoft has done the same with Microsoft Windows and its components.

Edited 2006-07-29 07:21

Reply Score: 4

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Opinion doesn't have to come with evidences; When it does, it is more like a fact, as long as the evidence is reasonably accurate.

Opinion is something that is relative; a person who claims something is bloated, could be to another person, mean a very feature rich and complete application for their needs.

If I have a problem with something, I actually DO spend the time to give atleast a decent quality response and justification for that stance so that it comes accross as a decent bit of feed back rather than some clueless whining by a ranting teenager with a chip on both shoulders.

Not everybody got that much of time to kill on any topic.

Then maybe the said individual shouldn't reply unless they've actually got something valuable to add to the discussion; hence the reason I like Digg so much, the crap comments are weeded out early, and the coherent, quality ones remain.

I don't see why a quick statement = immaturity.

What is mature about the statement, 'Windows is bloated, and it sucks!" - I don't know about you, but thats classic flamebait; the type of crap you see trolls put in forums in a hope to see an argument errupt between two opposing parties - in this case, the Linux and Windows camps.

Reply Score: 4

r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

"Then maybe the said individual shouldn't reply unless they've actually got something valuable to add to the discussion; hence the reason I like Digg so much, the crap comments are weeded out early, and the coherent, quality ones remain."

I've never been able to shake the feeling that such systems do nothing more than push the sanctioned, majority opinion to the forefront. It obliterates the fringe and the provocative and what remains is a lukewarm mash of uninformative groupthink, designed to offend noone, but because it is toned down to zero it doesn't inspire anyone.

Reply Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I've never been able to shake the feeling that such systems do nothing more than push the sanctioned, majority opinion to the forefront. It obliterates the fringe and the provocative and what remains is a lukewarm mash of uninformative groupthink, designed to offend noone, but because it is toned down to zero it doesn't inspire anyone.

If your base of readers is large enough, the extremes of both ends of the spectrums should neutralise each other out, resulting in a consistant moderation.

Yes, there are those who abuse the system here and on other forums, but at the same time, however, there is really no other alternative, you either have no moderation system where by the forum if flooded with crap, a moderation system where by a small group marks things down (which was how it done in the past) or we have the moderation system we've got now; you could say its the lesser of all the evils.

Reply Score: 1

devtty Member since:
2006-04-02

If I have a problem with something, I actually DO spend the time to give atleast a decent quality response and justification for that stance so that it comes accross as a decent bit of feed back rather than some clueless whining by a ranting teenager with a chip on both shoulders. [i]

That is your style, others might not choose to do something in a similar style all the time. They might just give a quick opinion during a short break on the job.

[[i]Not everybody got that much of time to kill on any topic.


Then maybe the said individual shouldn't reply unless they've actually got something valuable to add to the discussion; hence the reason I like Digg so much, the crap comments are weeded out early, and the coherent, quality ones remain. ]

That only indicates you can't tolerate others having a different style in expressing their opinions or writing posts.

[I don't see why a quick statement = immaturity.

What is mature about the statement, 'Windows is bloated, and it sucks!" - I don't know about you, but thats classic flamebait; ]

Well, if you are mature enough, you don't have to reply to this type of posts, right? Further, nobody sticks a gun to your forehead to force you to read them, correct?

The original post is like this "If Windows Live Messenger is any indication, Windows Vista will be a slow pig and a resource hog"

That is called inductive thinking, or extrapolation. The assumption is more like a prediction, not a dead accurate fact.

Reply Score: 0

sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, it's 200mb. And the whole Office Suite is something like 400mb. There is an initial overhead for each Office app. It's not that bad dude.

Reply Score: 1

same old same old
by postmodern on Fri 28th Jul 2006 21:58 UTC
postmodern
Member since:
2006-01-27

Is this really "new" news to us? Not much has changed and we are still seeing a steady stream of Vista news pieces.

Reply Score: 1

Truth is
by Joe User on Fri 28th Jul 2006 23:02 UTC
Joe User
Member since:
2005-06-29

Vista will be released on due time.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Truth is
by morbo on Fri 28th Jul 2006 23:27 UTC in reply to "Truth is"
morbo Member since:
2006-07-04

"released on due time" ????

maybe "in due time".

maybe they need to write in a few more holes so, they can write a new app that we can pay for to fix the holes?

Reply Score: 0

v RE[3]: 2007
by LinuxRocks on Fri 28th Jul 2006 23:37 UTC
RE[4]: 2007
by Nelson on Sat 29th Jul 2006 00:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: 2007"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Yes, let's compare an open source project split into hundreds of distributions with no market to consider and basically nothing to lose to Windows.

How about you tell us instead how big where these Linux releases these ..hundreds of Linux releases you talk of. Kernel updates? Individual distro releases or what?

How can something be legacy when nothing surpasses it? Surely projects like XGL can compete with it (and to a great extend mind you) but until there is something completely bigger and better I really don't think you can say that.

Also do you have access to the Windows source code? Really because calling something "buggy and insecure" withought seeing the source code really doesn't make sense.

It's logical that an OS will have some bugs, it's millions and millions of lines of code which has to accomondate for a wide variatey of software which may produce different results but you're making it seem much worse that it is.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: 2007
by somebody on Sat 29th Jul 2006 14:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: 2007"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

How about you tell us instead how big where these Linux releases these ..hundreds of Linux releases you talk of. Kernel updates? Individual distro releases or what?

Well, as much as you got the rest of the comment 100% right, here you were wrong.

How big linux release is?

Probably bigger than Vista. Diff lies in concept. *X was always segmented to smaller independent pieces (and if dependancies are posed they are mostly very little and differ from project to project), which should work both ways: independantly and with others. And the main feature of *X: "Everything is a file" is just a major help here to this concept.

Windows on the other hand was always one big pile stacking one on another. Meaning something can't work independently. While this concept is much better for a large company (planing can be done more carefully, coding can be very nicely shared between developers), the maintaining of the pile gets harder with each pile you add to original. Problem here is that with each coder you add to original number of coders there is one more that needs to get his hands on the same pile.

OSS can't afford pile concept. Planing is harder, cross connecting project is harder, you often don't know what others are doing. But at least each one is working on a little segment which could be replaced with other solution in case it fails. Kernel, XOrg, OO.o and other large projects are more or less suffernig for its complexity, but as long as people find a concept that could keep maintaing of such large project it won't pose a problem.

So,... question is not how big? Question here is who has better approach for its concept.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: 2007
by kaiwai on Sun 30th Jul 2006 02:01 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: 2007"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

<kaiwai starts to sound like a parrot> if you spend time over at Channel 9 they've actually gone into detail to how they're modularising Windows so that you end up in a situation where by you have small teams working independently on each component, make radical changes knowing that the whole deck of cards won't come crashing down upon them when remerged into the 'big tree'.

Microsoft *does* recognise the benefit of the 'bazaar' model, but at the same time, it must customise it to suit the corporate culture found in their organisation. Yes, Windows is a very complex code base, and it will take time, but their target IIRC is by the time Vienna does ship, it'll be 100% completely modularised, and in a state where by they'll know the interdependencies, and have established groups working on the different parts; which should allow rapid improvements in areas which require the extra attention, and later releases if need be - for example, a project is running behind, release the product the provide free upgrade/update for that piece of funcationality once complete and tested.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: 2007
by somebody on Sun 30th Jul 2006 17:13 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: 2007"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

[sarcasm] Yeah, and I've been using Cairo with Object file system in 95. [/sarcasm]

You can stop parroting. Nobody believes what MS promises. In the end they always cut 80% of new things. And things like complete rewrite or modularisation are the first ones to go.

And now, I'm saying "I'm God", and since this comment was on OSNews you'll probably start refering people how this is the holly truth.

MS doesn't really deliver their promises. They never did. They never will. One proof is that the same context you talk about has been said for both XP and Vista.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: 2007
by r_a_trip on Sat 29th Jul 2006 15:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: 2007"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

"How can something be legacy when nothing surpasses it?"

How can you claim an unreleased, five year old product is unsurpassable? Most popular GNU/Linux distributions have a timed release schedule. Every 6 months you can get the new goodies.

Maybe GNU/Linux isn't as idiot proof or as integrated as Windows, but at least you get to really use the goodies at home before they are old news and stale technology.

Edited 2006-07-29 15:25

Reply Score: 1

Nothing new in the front Windows
by Umbra on Sat 29th Jul 2006 00:01 UTC
Umbra
Member since:
2006-03-06

.
5 years of nothing but security updates. Hos is this possible ? How is this possible with 60.000 employees on the pay role. What do they do ? - count security holes ?

I am glad that I am not a PC-retailer, with the Christmas sales season coming up within just 3 months time. Well, maybe new Macs or iPods can help here. Or even new Microsoft mouses, zzzzzz

.

Reply Score: 5

butters Member since:
2005-07-08

I don't even think Microsoft knows exactly how they spent so much money and had such a hard time making much progress on Windows. The past 5 years at Microsoft must have been the most inefficient software development operation in history of computing.

How is it possible that Microsoft could spent $10B on Longhorn/Vista and achieve such a modest improvement? And how could have taken so long for them to do it?

Let's put it this way: in the microprocessor business, the engineering objective is normally to double performance every 18-36 months. The largest CPU vendor, Intel, spends no more than $10B per major processor architecture (and that number is from Itanium). Even thought Microsoft doesn't have even a significant fraction of the capital expenses that Intel bears, they managed to spend that amount (mostly labor costs) to achieve, IMHO, no more than a doubling in functionality over the course of 5 or more years of development.

The world spends over $12B per year on Windows client versions and over $9B on Windows server releases. Microsft spends less than $3B developing Windows Professional, Home, Media Center, and Tablet versions; somehow they spend about $6B on the Windows Server, SQL Server, and Exchange Server.

Do you think we're getting our money's worth?

Reply Score: 4

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"How is it possible that Microsoft could spent $10B on Longhorn/Vista and achieve such a modest improvement? And how could have taken so long for them to do it? "
---------------------

Did you miss the multiple articles months ago in the NY Times and other places where Microsoft said that after 2-3 years of Longhorn development, starting with XP as a starting point, they started over using Windows Server 2003 as the starting point?

Reply Score: 2

somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

How is this possible with 60.000 employees on the pay role. What do they do ? - count security holes ?

[joke] Yes. They got to 11 so far and now for the last two years all 60000 employees is figuring out which number comes next [/joke]

Sorry;) couldn't resist.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Nothing new in the front Windows
by tpaws on Sat 29th Jul 2006 19:11 UTC in reply to "Nothing new in the front Windows"
tpaws Member since:
2006-06-02

5 years of nothing but security updates. Hos is this possible ? How is this possible with 60.000 employees on the pay role. What do they do ? - count security holes ?

They also troll forums....

Reply Score: 1

Build time
by Umbra on Sat 29th Jul 2006 00:11 UTC
Umbra
Member since:
2006-03-06

.
It took NASA 5 years to build Apollo 11 and get 2+1 humans to the Moon and return them safely back to Earth again. 5 years!

The Microsoft Corporation must be the greatest impotence in our whole modern industrial history.
.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Build time
by nzjrs on Sat 29th Jul 2006 03:17 UTC in reply to "Build time"
nzjrs Member since:
2006-01-02

While I dont disagree with what you are saying I think you are a brave person equating the Apollo project with Software Engineering.

The Apollo space program had ambitious goals, but its organisation and methodology was bult upon fundemetal systems engineering and project management techniques.

To call microsoft the greatest impotence in the industrial revolution is comparing the relativly new Science of Software Engineering with Industrial and management processes which have been in constant improvement since the industrial revoluton.

Yes it is microsofts fault they made windows so unnecessarily complex and imporssible to maintain. They made their bed and now must lie in it.

All I ask is that you compare apples with apples (Software with Software).

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Build time
by Umbra on Sat 29th Jul 2006 04:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Build time"
Umbra Member since:
2006-03-06

I was referring to the time frame of 5 years of nothing from Microsoft.

On mere 5 years NASA designed, invented and built the biggest engine ever, executed the most complex mission ever to another "planet" - and returned safely back home. On mere 5 years.

Meanwhile, on 5 years, Microsoft has invented nothing and delivered nothing. The worlds biggest software company. Nothing but empty promises and security patches. They even swim in funds.

Hello stagnation !

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Build time
by sappyvcv on Sat 29th Jul 2006 05:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Build time"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

You mean as far as Windows goes?

They actually have released various versions of Windows in the past 5 years. Just not a new non-Service Pack version of their Client OS.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Build time
by PlatformAgnostic on Sat 29th Jul 2006 06:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Build time"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

I don't think the Windows organization is as big as you think. Sure, Microsoft has 70,000 people, but I doubt more than 500 work as developers across Windows.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Build time
by nzjrs on Sat 29th Jul 2006 11:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Build time"
nzjrs Member since:
2006-01-02

*sigh*

Congratiulations, your post definately appeases the masses by including a few diggs at Microsoft, their security track record and their evil capitalist ideals.

I still find it impossible to compare the Apollo space program with the development of Windows. Do you realy think that comparing what both companies acomplished over 5 years shows anything? Do you know enough about the Apollo program to even make these calls?

In the words of Dogbert: "Who needs facts when you have anecdotal evidence"

I agree that Microsoft has a track record of being terrible at shipping and developing software.

Reply Score: 1

v imho?
by TDavis on Sat 29th Jul 2006 03:20 UTC
v while we're at it...
by TDavis on Sat 29th Jul 2006 03:29 UTC
RE: while we're at it...
by twickline on Sat 29th Jul 2006 08:20 UTC in reply to "while we're at it..."
twickline Member since:
2005-12-31

FUD: Fear uncertainty and doubt

Is a sales or marketing strategy of disseminating negative (and vague) information on a competitor's product. The term originated to describe misinformation tactics in the computer hardware industry and has since been used more broadly. FUD is a manifestation of the appeal to fear

Troll:

A troll is in Usenet newsgroups, email discussion lists, and online forums a provocative posting intended to produce a large volume of frivolous responses. The term can also refer to someone making such a posting ("a troll") or to the action ("trolling", "to troll").

or:

Someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy or antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion, including the personal attack of calling others trolls.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: 2007
by LinuxRocks on Sat 29th Jul 2006 04:08 UTC
LinuxRocks
Member since:
2005-11-11

Ok, first of all, I have to comment on when you said

>"Also do you have access to the Windows source code? >Really because calling something "buggy and insecure" >withought seeing the source code really doesn't make >sense."

DUDE!!! Its a WELL know fact, ALL over the world, that Windows software is buggy and insecure... C'mon man, get out a little... Moving along...

>"How about you tell us instead how big where these >Linux releases these ..hundreds of Linux releases you >talk of. Kernel updates? Individual distro releases or >what?"

The very "Bazaar" style of programing that ALL open source projects take on are a "Release quick and often" philosophy... Not just the Kernel. Look at most of the prominent Open Source projects that make up the most basic disto... There have been not only hundreds of releases, more like millions since Windows XP was released. Proprietary, locked up code will NEVER be able to reach that kind of release level unless they Open Source their code. This, again, is a known fact in the Open Source community.

>"It's logical that an OS will have some bugs, it's >millions and millions of lines of code which has to >accomondate for a wide variatey of software which may >produce different results but you're making it seem >much worse that it is."

Yes, I agree with you here. People create the code, and to error is human... HOWEVER, Open Source projects go thought extensive peer review and most if not all the bugs are cleaned up FAR quicker than a commercial, Cathedral Style of coding.

I recommend you read The Cathedral and the Bazaar by Erik Raymond. It will really open up your eyes to how all this works and better explain why software companies like Microsoft can't really compete with Open Source projects...

http://catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/

Enjoy...

Edited 2006-07-29 04:11

Reply Score: 1

Slipping
by Buck on Sat 29th Jul 2006 11:07 UTC
Buck
Member since:
2005-06-29

Just noting that project "Chicago" that was to be Windows 95 had a delay of at least 2 years. Windows 95 was supposed to be shipped in 1993. Anyhow, even then given the additional time Apple still lost the battle at that time, as Windows 95 eventually prevailed... So it's not really important that Vista may not be released on time, what's more important is the impact that it will eventually create, or lack of such.
Stock brokers these days are very nervous and impatient.

Reply Score: 1

v Duke Nukem Forever
by halfmanhalfamazing on Sat 29th Jul 2006 12:47 UTC
My theory...
by jo42 on Sat 29th Jul 2006 15:47 UTC
jo42
Member since:
2006-02-20

Is that they are waiting for hardware fast enough to run it so that it appears as responsive to the end user as XP does on a 1GHz P3...

:-p

Reply Score: 3

Ronin
Member since:
2006-07-21

One thing to consider when talking about the speed of releases in Linux/BSD vs Microsoft is everything other than the actual OS. There are manuals and packaging that have to be printed, media stamped, support people trained, marketing efforts done, and vendors who need lead time. Posting the latest distro on a download site with a few release notes doesn't quite have the same overhead burden as a commercial product.

Reply Score: 2

One can understand thar some are worried
by Umbra on Sat 29th Jul 2006 17:06 UTC
Umbra
Member since:
2006-03-06

.

"Dear Mom" (whom also happens to be the aunt). Amazingly strong logical algorithm they have managed to build into the Vista speech wreckognition.

The video is here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1123221217782777472

Reply Score: 1

Don't blame them.
by Quag7 on Sat 29th Jul 2006 21:02 UTC
Quag7
Member since:
2005-07-28

Not that I'm really excited about Vista, I commend Microsoft for their decision to delay this until it's ready - hopefully they're working on security issues.

I think they should just stop announcing release dates. No one *needs* Vista for anything yet. From a marketing standpoint, they should announce a release date 60 days before it is shipped, bomb the media with advertising, and then ship on the exact date they indicate. But they shouldn't be projecting release dates years in advance.

Of course they've delayed. No one is surprised that deadlines slip (though people are pretending this is an issue to take more tired shots at Microsoft).

Whatever Microsoft's deficiencies, delaying the release of the world's most popular desktop OS so that they get it right is *not* one.

Please, let's wait until Vista is released and people are running it, and THEN, let's take cheap shots at it!

Reply Score: 1

those who do not...
by bailey86 on Sun 30th Jul 2006 13:01 UTC
bailey86
Member since:
2005-10-14

those who do not understand Debian are condemned to re-invent it, poorly.

was i first?

Reply Score: 1

Sickening!
by eantoranz on Sun 30th Jul 2006 14:32 UTC
eantoranz
Member since:
2005-12-18

It's really sickening to see how a pretty "big" face in news can be so forgiving with its own memory.

Microsoft originally intended to release Vista - the first major update since Windows XP was introduced five years ago - in the second half of 2006.

First half 2006? Really???

I think it was planned for 2003, wasn't it? :-P

Reply Score: 1